CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- IN THE H 1. CRM-M- P. PARAMASIVA STATE OFHARY 2. CRM-M-32 SHARMILA ANA STATE OF HAR 3. CRM-M-32 SANTOSH MAH STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. T Mr. A Mr. A Mr. A Mr. G -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH -28636-2021 (O&M) ASIVAM MAHALINGAM AND AN Versus HARYANA AND ORS. 32624-2021 (O&M) A ANAND Versus HARYANA AND ORS. 32887-2021 (O&M) MAHALINGAM Versus HARYANA AND ORS. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate w Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-28636-2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624-2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887-2021 (O&M) Reserved on : 30.01.2026 Pronounced on : 02.04.2026 Uploaded on : 02.04.2026 ND ANR. ... Petitioners ...Respondents …Petitioner …Respondents …Petitioner …Respondents ANISHA BATRA cate with ocate, M) M) M) 2026 2026 6 AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- Mr. V Mr. S Ms. S Mr. D respo Mr. A Mr. H Mr. P Mr. V Ms. V Mr. A Mr. S MANISHA BATR 1. This petitions, all filed (Cr.P.C.) which is Sanhita, 2023, registered under S Police Station DL been made for qua M-32887-2021, pr Central Bureau of 2. The a written complaint non-banking finan company), by all -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 2 Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocate, Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Samma Singh, Advocate for the p Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Addl. Advoc respondent No.1 to 3 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advoca Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate, Ms. Vanshika, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Ginwar, Advocate and Mr. Shivik Jain, Advocate for respond **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) is common order shall dispose ll filed under Section 482 of the hich is pari materia with Section 528 23, in matters arising out of FIR nder Sections 120B, 34, 406, 420, 46 on DLF Phase III Gurugram. Prayer for quashing of FIR whereas in the thi 21, prayer has been made for transfer eau of Investigation (CBI) or some oth The aforementioned FIR has been plaint filed by the respondent No.4-M financial company (hereinafter to by alleging that it was previously kn or the petitioners dvocate General, Haryana for dvocate with espondent No.4 spose of the aforementioned three the Code of Criminal Procedure n 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksa FIR No.0175 dated 17.07.2021 20, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC at Prayer in the first two petitions has the third petition bearing No. CRM- ansfer of investigation of the case to me other independent agency. been registered on the basis of a M/s. PM Fincap Ltd. which is a to be referred as complainant known as M/s. Tripund Motors three dure raksa 2021 C at s - se to of a is a nant otors AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- and General Finan February, 2018. companies, having FIR, that the petiti day conducting of Maharaji Educatio “ST”), had approa purpose of expand both the Trusts. amount by represe A written agreem agreement, the loa of security, the pet land owned by th Development Corp on specified bank income of both petitioners and the account of the co given by the petiti of the Trusts. 3. As pe availing of aforem -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 3 l Finance Limited and changed its na 018. The complainant company is having its corporate office at Gurugra e petitioners, who were trustees of, an ting of business including financial tra ducational Trust (for short “MET”) approached the complainant for securi expanding the business of dental and . They induced the complainan epresenting that they had properties to greement was executed on 18.03.20 the loan was to be repaid alongwith in the petitioners created second charge o by the Trusts, the first charge bei t Corporation Limited (HUDCO). Th bank accounts and undertook that th both the Trusts would be deposite nd the said amount deposited therein, the complainant for repayment of loa petitioners that no other bank accoun As per the allegations, the intention o aforementioned loan was dishonest an its name to M/s. PM Fincap Ltd in any is a part of limited group of urugram. It has been alleged in the of, and were responsible for day-to- ial transactions of two trusts namely ”) and Santosh Trust (for short securing loan of Rs.35 crores for the al and medical colleges operated by lainant to lend the aforementioned to secure repayment of the loan. .03.2015. As per the terms of the ith interest by 30.09.2015. By way arge over 63.45 acres of agricultural ge being with Housing and Urban ). They also created hypothecation that the revenue generated from the eposited in those accounts by the erein, will be transferred to the bank of loan. An undertaking was also ccount would be opened in the name ntion of the petitioners at the time of nest and they intended to criminally td in p of n the - mely short r the d by oned loan. f the way ltural rban ation the the bank also ame e of nally AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- misappropriate the to sell had already and Developers Pr 21 acres of land was created in fav was repaid by the remaining amount payment of the sa petitioners in favo from November, 2 crores as given by 4. The c the petitioners and properties of the 08.05.2017 held th of land owned by respondent No.4 b land. However, complainant had f SGS Construction received by the Hon’ble Supreme the said land had b -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 4 ate the amount of loan. They concea already been executed by them in fav pers Private Limited (for short “SGS which was part of 62.45 acres of l in favour of the complainant. Only a by the petitioners and they commi mount alongwith interest accrued the the same on one pretext or the other. n favour of the complainant had been ber, 2015 till March, 2016. Another en by the petitioners had also been dis The complainant further alleged that rs and HUDCO, who was having firs f the Trusts and the Hon’ble Supr held that HUDCO, could sell 42.845 a ed by the Trusts for recovering loan. No.4 became first charge-holder qua wever, in a clandestine manner a had first charge over the said land, th uctions Developers Private Limited i the said sale was misappropriate preme Court the fact that the compla had been concealed. oncealed the fact that an agreement in favour of one SGS Constructions SGS Constructions”) in respect of res of land, qua which second charge Only an amount of Rs.8,66,00,000/- mmitted default in payment of the ed thereon. They kept on avoiding other. Some cheques issued by the been dishonoured during the period nother cheque for an amount of Rs.2 een dishonoured in November, 2018. ed that there was litigation between ng first charge over the immoveable Supreme Court, vide order dated .845 acres of land out of 63.45 acres loan. As a consequence thereof, the r qua the remaining 20.605 acres of ner and by suppressing that the land, the petitioners sold the same to ited in April, 2018 and the money riated by themselves. Before the omplainant was having charge over ment tions ct of arge - f the iding y the eriod Rs.2 ween eable ated acres f, the es of the e to oney the over AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 5. As pe know that the spec and exclusive char interest of the com manner, opened diverted from the r by the petitioners. repayment of the l taken place at the it was there that t would repay the m matter. 6. It is allegations in the of cheating, forg availment of the l transaction since p Trusts, had availe Links and it was Paramsivam Maha by creating charge existing within dif unforeseen circum -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 5 As per the further allegations, the r e specific bank accounts over which t e charge, had negligible bank balance complainant. Not even this, the p ened new bank accounts and the r m the reach of the complainant in viola ioners. By further alleging that the co f the loan amount and the negotiations at the corporate office of the complain that the petitioners had kept on assur y the money, the respondent No.4 pr It is argued by learned Senior coun in the FIR do not make out any case f forgery or use of forged docume f the loan to the tune of Rs.35 Crores since previously, the petitioners in orde availed loan to the tune of Rs.15 Cr it was only subsequently that the Tr Mahalingam, had sought financial as charge over 272 flats existing in Ghaz hin different villages of Ghaziabad, U circumstances beyond the control of , the respondent No.4 also came to hich the petitioners had created first alance thereby defeating the security , the petitioners had in a clandestine the revenue received therein was violation of the undertakings given the conversations with regard to the iations qua the grant of the same had plainant company at Gurugram and n assuring the complainant that they o.4 prayed for taking action in the r counsel for the petitioner that the case for commission of the offences ocuments by the petitioners. The Crores by the Trusts was not a new in order to fulfil the objectives of the .15 Crores from M/s. Sindhu Trade the Trusts through the petitioner P. cial assistance from respondent No.4 n Ghaziabad and 63.45 acres of land bad, UP. It was on account of some rol of the petitioners that there was e to first urity stine as iven o the had and they the t the nces The new f the rade er P. No.4 land some was AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- some default in re the parties had aris criminal colour by Moreso, the Hon’ litigation with HU remedy of recove recovery of the lo such, it is apparen which is essentiall the same are not m 7. It is the allegations in intention since th respondent No.4. the year 2009. Th the loan amount o to the extent of Rs cheating are not a since the very beg for the petitioner h of UP and anothe Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC SCC 673, Mahmo -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 6 lt in repayment of the loan. The trans ad arisen out of a contract and was pu lour by the respondent No.4, to exert Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order ith HUDCO, had specifically observ recovery of loan amount. It is argue the loan amount had been available pparent that the criminal proceedings h entially of civil nature to abuse the p not maintainable. It is further argued by learned Senior ns in the complaint do not show at al nce the very inception on the part o No.4. The loan transactions had been 9. The loan availed in the year 2009 ount of Rs.35 crores as availed in the y Rs.8,66,00,000/-. The ingredients not at all attracted since the allegatio ry beginning are lacking. To buttress h ioner has placed reliance upon G. Saga other (2000) 2 SCC 636, Indian Oil SCC 736, Paramjeet Batra Vs. Sta hmood Ali and others Versus State transaction that took place between as purely a civil transaction given a exert pressure upon the petitioners. order dated 08.05.2017 passed in a observed that respondent No.4 had argued that when civil remedy for ilable with the respondent No.4, as dings have been initiated in a matter the process of the Court and hence enior counsel for the petitioners that w at all that there was any dishonest part of the petitioners to cheat the d been going on between them since r 2009, had been duly repaid. Even n the year 2015 had also been repaid edients for commission of offence of legations of dishonest or inducement ttress his arguments, learned counsel Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India s. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 State of UP and others 2023 SCC ween en a ners. a had y for 4, as atter ence that onest t the since Even paid ce of ment unsel ate dia 11 CC AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- OnLine SC 950, 2013 (6) SCC 740 Kumar Ghai and and Vesa Holding 8. Learn even the ingredien under Section 406 any allegation that the respondent No having dominion o therefore, liable to State of Gujarat Chandra Ratanlal 9. Learn argument to the ef make out any case security for the pu within the meanin taking cognizance petitioners, has be 10. It is petitioner Sharmil -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 7 50, Chandran Ratnaswami Versus 740, Archana Rana Vs. State of and others Vs. State of West Bengal ldings Private Limited Vs. State of K Learned Senior counsel for the peti gredients for commission of offence u n 406 of IPC are not at all attracted in on that the petitioners were entrusted w ent No.4 or they had converted the inion over such property. It is argued able to be quashed. Reliance in this arat Vs. Jaswant Lal Nathalal (1 anlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Learned Senior counsel for the p the effect that the allegations in the FI y case at all for commission of offen the purpose of cheating or use of any eaning of Sections 467, 468 and 471 o ance under the aforementioned sectio has been made out. It is also argued by learned cou harmila Anand was not responsible f rsus K.C. Palanisamy and others e of UP (2021) 3 SCC 751, Vijay ngal and others (2022) 7 SCC 124 of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293. e petitioner has further argued that ence under Section 405, punishable cted in this case since there is neither usted with any property belonging to d the same to their own use while argued that FIR under this Section is in this regard has been placed upon l (1968) 2 SCR 408 and Satish and Another (2019) 9 SCC 148. the petitioner has raised another the FIR on the face of record do not offences of forgery of any valuable of any forged document punishable d 471 of IPC and as such, no case for sections and proceeding against the d counsel for the petitioners that sible for day-to-day conduct of the ers jay 24 that able ither ng to hile on is upon ish other o not able ble e for t the that f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- business of the Tr 2016/2017. She w Trusts and the re fastened upon her reliance has been SCC 662 and Sun 11. Per co filed by way of a complainant whil respondent, have v Code is not mainta seeking interventi conducting prelim disclosed the factu recommendation f registered. The ca joined investigatio days of lodging o constituted by th 20.07.2021. The p they did not come show that the inve -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 8 the Trusts. She had resigned from th She was not the signatory to the agree the respondent No.4 and as such no on her for commission of subject offen been placed upon SK Alagh Vs. Sta Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI (2015) Per contra, learned State counsel whi y of affidavit and learned Senior cou t while referring to the contents o e vehemently argued that the peti maintainable at all since there is no ex ervention thereunder by this Court. preliminary inquiry and finding that th e factum of commission of cognizab ation for registration of FIR had been The case is at its nascent stage. Two o stigation and directly approached this ging of the FIR. A Special Investi by the orders of the Commission The petitioners were sent notices to jo t come forward. The objections are p e investigation has not been conducted rom the Trusts way-back in the year e agreement(s) executed between the uch no vicarious liability could be t offences. To fortify this argument, . State of UP and others (2008) 5 015) 4 SCC 609. el while relying upon the short reply or counsel for the respondent No.4- nts of the reply as filed by this he petition under Section 482 of the no exceptional or rare circumstance Court. It is submitted that after that the allegations in the complaint able offences by the petitioners, d been made and the same has been Two of the petitioners have not even ed this Court within a period of 09 Investigation Team (SIT) had been issioner of Police, Gurugram on es to join the preliminary inquiry but are premature. There is nothing to ducted in a proper manner. year n the d be ent, ) 5 reply - this f the tance after laint ners, been even f 09 been on y but ng to AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 12. It is at the initial stage. of cognizable offe upon inquiry as to the allegations als Investigating Age the FIR and no gro placed by learned Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sta Pharmaceutical W SCC 122, Skoda Pradesh, 2020 SC SCC 35 and Ra Maharashtra Vs. Chhattisgarh and 559, Kaushik Cha Asit Bhattacharje Kaur Vs. State (G and KV Rajendra (2013) 2 SCC 480 13. It is f to show that there petitioners while e -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 9 It is further argued that the criminal p stage. The allegations make out a pr le offences as against the petitioners y as to the reliability or genuineness of also cannot be gone into at this sta g Agency deserves to be permitted to no ground for allowing the petitions arned counsel for respondent No.4 up . State of Maharashtra (2021) SC cal Works Limited Versus Mohamm oda Auto Volkswagen India Priva 0 SCC OnLine SC 958, Kaptan Sin Ram Babu Vs. State of MP ( Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996 and another Vs. Aman Kumar Sin Chatterjee V. State of Haryana an harjee V. Hanuman Parsad Ojha ( te (Government of NCT, Delhi) an ndra Vs. Superintendent of Police, S 480. It is further argued that the allegation t there existed fraudulent and dishone hile executing agreement dated 18.03 inal proceedings cannot be scuttled ut a prima facie case for commission tioners. This Court cannot embark ess of the allegations. The merits of his stage. It is, thus, argued that the tted to investigate the allegations in s is made out. Reliance has been o.4 upon Neeharika Infrastructure ) SCC OnLine SC 315, Jhandu hammad SharafulHaque (2005) 1 Private Limited V. State of Uttar n Singh Vs. State of UP (2021) 9 P (2009) 7 SCC 194, State of (1996) 1 SCC 452 and State of r Singh and others (2023) 6 SCC a and Others (2020) 10 SCC 92, jha (2007) 5 SCC 786, Satvinder i) and another (1999) 8 SCC 728 ice, SBCID, South Zone, Chennai gations prima facie make out a case ishonest intention on the part of the 18.03.2015 in favour of respondent ttled ssion bark its of t the ns in been ure du ) 1 ttar ) 9 of of CC 92, der 28 nai case f the dent AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- No.4 and while av was concealed tha second charge in been executed in obligation arising element of cheatin respondent No.4 offences alleged. cognizable offence out. In support o No.4 has placed r SCC 677. 14. This C for the parties at co 15. On co ground that this C learned senior cou Court exercising p FIR while the Po accused therein. A Supreme Court in Lal 1992 Supp. (1 -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 10 hile availing loan to the tune of Rs.3 ed that qua 21 acres out of 63.45 acres ge in favour of respondent No.4, an ted in favour of SGS Constructions rising out of the contract was of c cheating is prima facie made out and No.4 who is a party to the contrac leged. It is, hence, argued that sinc offences is made out, as such no groun port of this contention, learned Seni aced reliance upon Dr. Lakshman V. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. On considering the contentions as rai this Court is called upon to answer i or counsel for the petitioners is, wheth ising powers under Section 482 of Cr the Police embarks on an investigatio rein. At the outset, it would be prope urt in a celebrated judgment cited as p. (1) SCC 335, has laid down the f 10 f Rs.35 Crores since a material fact 5 acres of land which was kept under .4, an agreement to sell had already uctions. Despite the fact that the s of civil nature, still existence of ut and therefore, it is open for the ontract to prosecute other side for at since a case for commission of ground for quashing of FIR is made Senior counsel for the respondent n V. State of Karnataka (2019) 9 ubmissions made by learned counsel as raised by both the sides, the first swer in view of the pleas raised by whether and to what extent, would a of Cr.P.C., be justified to quash an stigation against a person named as proper to mention that the Hon’ble ted as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan e following principles giving the fact nder eady t the of r the or n of ade dent ) 9 unsel first d by uld a h an d as n’ble jan g the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- categories of cases Cr.P.C. can be ex the ends of justice (a) the acc offe (b) oth cog und Ma (c) ’co not aga (d) cog no of Co (e) abs pru suf (f) pro -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 11 f cases by way of illustrations wherein be exercised either to prevent abuse o justice. Some of these guidelines are m (a) where the allegations made in t the complaint, even if they are t accepted in their entirety do no offence or make out a case against (b) where the allegations in the other materials, if any, accompany cognizable offence, justifying an i under Section 156(1) of the Code Magistrate within the purview of Se (c) where the uncontroverted alle ’complaint and the evidence collec not disclose the commission of an against the accused; (d) where the allegations in th cognizable offence but constitute o no investigation is permitted by a p of a Magistrate as contemplated Code; (e) where the allegations made in absurd and inherently improbabl prudent person can ever reach a sufficient ground for proceeding ag (f) where there is an express lega provisions of the Code or the co 11 herein powers under Section 482 of buse of process of Court or to secure s are mentioned as hereunder :- in the First Information Report or re taken at their face value and not prima facie constitute any inst the accused; the First Information Report and anying the F.I.R. do not disclose a an investigation by police officers Code except under an order of a of Section 155(2) of the Code; allegations made in the FIR or ollected in support of the same do f any offence and make out a case n the FIR do not constitute a ute only a non-cognizable offence, y a police officer without an order ated under Section 155(2) of the e in the FIR or complaint are so bable on the basis of which no ch a just conclusion that there is g against the accused; legal bar engrafted in any of the e concerned Act (under which a 82 of cure t or nd ny nd e a ers f a or do ase a ce, der the so no is the a AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- cri con pro red (g) fide ulte a v 16. In Ne Supreme Court ha -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 12 criminal proceeding is institut continuance of the proceedings an provision in the Code or the concer redress for the grievance of the agg (g) where a criminal proceeding is fide and/or where the proceeding is ulterior motive for wreaking venge a view to spite him due to private a Neeharika Infrastructure Private urt has observed as follows :- i) Police has the statutor relevant provisions of the C contained in Chapter XIV of t cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwa cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases whe offence of any kind is disclosed that the Court will not permit an iv) The power of quashing with circumspection, as it has b rare cases (not to be confuse context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR is sought, the court cannot emb 12 tituted) to the institution and s and/or where there is a specific ncerned Act, providing efficacious e aggrieved party; ng is manifestly attended with mala ing is maliciously instituted with an engeance on the accused and with ate and personal grudge. ivate Limited (supra), the Hon’ble tutory right and duty under the e Code of Criminal Procedure of the Code to investigate into a thwart any investigation into the where no cognizable offence or osed in the first information report it an investigation to go on; ing should be exercised sparingly as been observed, in the 'rarest of nfused with the formation in the FIR/complaint, quashing of which embark upon an enquiry as to the nd ific ous ala an ith n’ble the ure o a the or ort gly t of the ich the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 13 reliability or genuineness or made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings o initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complain rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts a jurisdiction of the police, sinc operate in two specific spheres to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the j complementary, not overlapping x) Save in exceptional c would result in miscarriage o judicial process should not investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inher confer an arbitrary jurisdiction to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information re which must disclose all facts offence reported. Therefore, w police is in progress, the court s the allegations in the FIR, P complete the investigation. pronounce the conclusion ba 13 or otherwise of the allegations gs ought not to be scuttled at the plaint/FIR should be an exception rts are barred from usurping the since the two organs of the State eres of activities and one ought not re; he judiciary and the police are pping; al cases where non-interference ge of justice, the Court and the not interfere at the stage of nherent powers of the Court do not tion on the Court to act according n report is not an encyclopaedia facts and details relating to the e, when the investigation by the urt should not go into the merits of IR, Police must be permitted to n. It would be premature to based on hazy facts that the ons the ion the ate not are nce the of not ing dia the the s of to to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 17. In K Supreme Court as -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 14 complaint/FIR does not deserv amounts to abuse of process of investigating officer finds that application made by the compla may file an appropriate repor Magistrate which may be Magistrate in accordance with t xiii) The power under Sectio but conferment of wide power cautious. It casts an onerous a court; xiv) However, at the same t regard being had to the parame restraint imposed by law, mor laid down by this Court in the and BhajanLal (supra), has t FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for qua alleged accused and the court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., on allegations in the FIR disclose offence or not. The court is not whether or not the merits of cognizable offence and the investigating agency/police to the FIR; Kaptan Singh’s case (supra), urt as under :- 14 serve to be investigated or that it ss of law. After investigation, if the that there is no substance in the mplainant, the investigating officer eport/summary before the learned be considered by the learned ith the known procedure; ection 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide, wer requires the court to be more us and more diligent duty on the me time, the court, if it thinks fit, rameters of quashing and the self - more particularly the parameters the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) as the jurisdiction to quash the quashing the FIR is made by the ourt when it exercises the power ., only has to consider whether the close commission of a cognizable not required to consider on merits s of the allegations make out a the court has to permit the to investigate the allegations in pra), it was observed by Hon’ble t it the the cer ed ed de, ore the fit, - ers ra) the the er the ble rits t a the in n’ble AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- “At th High quash 147, 1 when quash office the co and a statem the le 149, took passe took inves petiti case consi requi are r after differ -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 15 At the outset, it is required to be not igh Court in exercise of powers uashed the criminal proceedings fo 47, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC hen the High Court in exercise of po uashed the criminal proceedings, fficer after recording the statement he complainant and collecting the ev nd after taking statement of the in tatement of the accused persons, ha he learned Magistrate for the offen 49, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and eve ook the cognizance. From the im assed by the High Court, it does no ook into consideration the ma nvestigation/inquiry and even the etition under Section 482 CrPC wa ase the allegations in the FIR/comp onsidered and whether a cognizable equired to be considered. However, re recorded, evidence is collected fter conclusion of the investigation ifferent footing and the Court 15 e noted that in the present case, the ers under Section 482 CrPC has gs for the offences under Sections IPC. It is required to be noted that of powers under Section 482 CrPC gs, by the time the investigating ent of the witnesses, statement of he evidence from the incident place e independent witnesses and even , has filed the charge-sheet before offences under Sections 147, 148, even the learned Magistrate also e impugned judgment and order es not appear that the High Court material collected during the the statements recorded. If the C was at the stage of FIR in that complaint only are required to be zable offence is disclosed or not is ver, thereafter when the statements cted and the charge-sheet is filed tion/inquiry the matter stands on rt is required to consider the the has ons hat PC ing t of ace ven ore 48, lso der urt the the hat be t is nts led on the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- mater stage decis allega Cour trial. order cogni inves court to be mater canno conte more obser inves to exa mater on su 18. In Ra observed that the Section 482 of Cr -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 16 aterial/evidence collected during t tage also, as observed and held b ecisions, the High Court is not requi llegations and/or enter into the me ourt is exercising the appellate juri rial. As held by this Court in Dine rder to examine as to whether factua ognizable offence or not, the Hig nvestigating agency nor can exercis ourt. It is further observed and held o be examined keeping in view, the c aterial, if any, requiring no proof. annot appreciate evidence nor can i ontents of FIR and material relied ore so, when the material relied bserved that in such a situation, nvestigating authority at such stage o examine questions once the charge aterial as to, how far and to what n such material” Ram Babu’s case (supra), the at the question to be considered w of Cr.P.C. for quashing a complaint/ 16 ing the investigation. Even at this eld by this Court in a catena of equired to go into the merits of the merits of the case as if the High jurisdiction and/or conducting the Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel, in actual contents of FIR disclose any High Court cannot act like the ercise the powers like an appellate held that that question is required the contents of FIR and prima facie oof. At such stage, the High Court an it draw its own inferences from lied on. It is further observed it is lied on is disputed. It is further tion, it becomes the job of the tage to probe and then of the court arge-sheet is filed along with such hat extent reliance can be placed the Hon’ble Supreme Court had red while exercising power under plaint/FIR is not whether there was his of the igh the in ny the ate red cie urt om t is her the urt ch ced had nder was AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- any truth in the al allegations, a cogn 19. On g aforementioned ca for quashing of FI extra-ordinary cir consider only the is disclosed or not 20. Now out a case for co allegations, the Tr of Rs.35 Crores fr securities. The fi measuring 63.45 a having first charg been incorporated the allegations in categorically denie Apex Court in som the Trusts had bee remaining 20.605 application moved -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 17 the allegations made but the question a cognizable offence or offences is ma On going through the principles o ned cases, it is apparent that powers u g of FIR at the initial stages are to be ry circumstances and the High Cour ly the allegations in the FIR and as to or not? Now it is to be seen as to whether th for commission of any cognizable o Trusts operated by the petitioners a ores from the complainant company as The first security was by way of sec 3.45 acres of land owned by the Trus charge over land, was known to the orated in the written agreement. How ons in the FIR, it has come on reco y denied by the petitioners that as per in some litigation, out of 63.45 acres o ad been directed to be sold by HUDC 0.605 acres of land was given to the re moved by the complainant, before the 17 estion is whether on the basis of the s is made out or not? iples of law as laid down in the wers under Section 482 of the Code e to be exercised in exceptional and Court at this stage is required to as to whether a cognizable offence ther the allegations in the FIR make able offence(s) or not? As per the oners availed loan facility to the tune any as on 18.03.2015 against certain of second charge created over land e Trusts. The fact that HUDCO was to the respondent No.4 and had also . However, from the bare reading of n record, and it has also not been as per the directions of the Hon’ble acres of land, 42.845 acres of land of DCO and the first charge qua the the respondent No.4 on intervention ore the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but f the the Code l and d to ence ake r the tune rtain land was also ng of been n’ble nd of a the ntion , but AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- the said direction to sell was found Constructions in th favour. 21. The executed way ba agreement dated 1 same was conceale the same propert suppression and m No.1 to part with increased to mani which is a norm commission of cog the allegations th them, had opened from the Trusts to and had not kept given, also show t allegations made b deception had op avoid repayment respondent No.4 -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 18 ction was withdrawn qua the 20.605 found to be executed in favour of in the year 2009 and sale deed was The fact that agreement in favour ay back in the year 2010, is not f ated 18.03.2015 executed with respon ncealed by the petitioners while creati roperty in favour of respondent No and misrepresentation of facts, ther t with a sum of Rs.35 crores which alo manifold amount. If the allegations norm that is to be followed at this of cognizable offence under Section 4 ons that the petitioners in violation opened new bank accounts to divert usts to some other sources and appa kept any balance in the bank accoun how their dishonest intention and thi made by respondent No.4 that petitio ad opened new accounts with regard ment to the respondent No.4. No.4 on the part of the petitioners 18 0.605 acres of land as an agreement our of above-mentioned M/s. SGS d was ordered to be registered in its favour of SGS Constructions, was not found mentioned in the loan respondent No.4 and obviously, the creating second charge in respect of nt No.4 which clearly amounts to s, thereby inducing the respondent ich alongwith interest has now been ations in the FIR are to be believed at this stage, then the same reveal ction 420 by the petitioner. So far as ation of the undertakings given by divert the revenue/deposit received apparently to misappropriate them ccounts qua which undertaking was d this fact also lends credence to the petitioners by misrepresentation and regard to revenue of the Trusts to The intention to deceive the tioners since the very inception is ment SGS in its was loan , the ct of ts to dent been d eveal ar as n by ived them was o the and ts to the n is AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- therefore, apparen commission of off 22. Since punishable under S to examine the commission of off breach of trust are (1) domin (2) (3) or wil (a) trust i (b) trust. 23. Sectio The ingredients fo 463 of IPC are :- -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 19 pparent from the record, thereby sho of offence punishable under Section 4 Since the petitioners have been booke nder Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 the ingredients of these offences of offence punishable under Section 4 ust are :- The accused must be entrust ominion over it, The person so entrusted must u The accused must dishonestly u r wilfully suffer any other person to d of any direction of law prescr ust is to be discharged, or; of any legal contract made to ust. Section 467 of the IPC deals with for ents for commission of offence of for - 19 by showing a prima facie case for ction 420 of IPC. booked for commission of offences d 471 of IPC as well, it is imperative fences. Essential ingredients for ction 405 i.e. the offence of criminal trusted with the property or with ust use that property, or; stly use or dispose of that property to do so in violation, escribing the mode in which such e touching the discharge of such ith forgery of valuable security etc.. of forgery as defined under Section e for nces ative for inal ith rty ch ch etc.. ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- (i) (ii) 24. Sectio committed for the Section, it must b intention of using 25. The e under Section 471 (i) (ii) 26. It is criminal breach of offences of forgery intention to cause -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 20 the making of a false document such making should be with su the Section viz. (a) to cause public, or (ii) any person or (b or (c) to cause any person to cause any person to enter contract, or (e) to commit committed Section 468 of IPC provides punish for the purpose of cheating. For con must be proved that the accused for using the same for the purpose of chea The essential ingredients for comm n 471 of IPC are : Fraudulent or dishonest use of Knowledge or reasonable bel using that document that it is a It is apparent from the above that ach of trust, entrustment of property i forgery or use of forged document, ma cause damage or injury is must. In 20 ment or part of it, and th such intention as is specified in ause damage or injury to (i) the or (b) to support any claim or title, n to part with property, or (d) to ter into any express or implied mit fraud or that fraud may be punishment for offence of forgery or conviction of a person under this ed forged some document with the f cheating. commission of offence punishable e of document as genuine; belief on the part of the person t is a forged one. e that to constitute an offence of perty is pivotal whereas to constitute nt, making of a false document with st. In the instant case, however, on in the tle, to ied be rgery this the able son e of titute with r, on AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- going through the are no allegations the petitioners. F case of making of commit offence of cannot be stated th this case though, since this Court h commission of off cannot be stated proposition of la commission of a c agency to collect with law, is disclo option but to proce competent officer report is true, w occurrence, wheth evidence to supp consideration of th cognizable offence these matters, the the case and disco -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 21 gh the allegations in the FIR, this Cou ations of entrustment of any property b ers. Further, the allegations also do ing of a false document by either of nce of forgery or use of any such doc tated that the ingredients of aforement ough, it may be a question of furthe ourt has opined that the allegations of offence of cheating, which too is a tated that no cognizable offence is of law that if from the allegations of a cognizable offence which only s ollect all necessary evidence and then disclosed, then in such a situation, o proceed to investigate the case either fficer to conduct the investigation. T rue, whether it discloses full detai whether the accused is named and support the allegations are matt n of the question whether the report offence. Even if the information does s, the Investigating Officer is not abso d discover the true facts, if he can. R 21 is Court is of the opinion that there perty by the complainant by either of so do not make out any prima facie ther of the petitioners with intent to ch document as such, at this stage it ementioned offences are attracted in further investigation. Nonetheless, ations prima facie reveal factum of too is a cognizable offence, hence, it ce is made out. It is well-settled gations in the FIR, the factum of only sets in motion the investigating d then to take action in accordance , the investigating officer has no either himself or to depute any other ion. The question as to whether the details regarding the manner of ed and whether there is sufficient matters which are alien to the eport discloses the commission of a n does not give full details regarding t absolved of his duty to investigate can. Reliance in this regard can be there er of facie nt to ge it ed in , m of ce, it ttled of ating ance s no other r the r of cient the of a rding igate n be AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- placed upon CBI held so. 27. Learn the argument that cause of action if Gurugram and n DLF Gurugram bu respondent No.4. no territorial juris Police Station has learned Senior cou State of Chhattis others Vs. State of 28. In Ma the accused was th to investigate the and 498A of IPC b within the territori vide referring to th that when it is unc or where the offe inquired into or tri -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 22 BI Vs. Tappan Kumar Singh (200 Learned Senior counsel for the petiti that the properties of the Trusts a tion if any had accrued there, none o nd no offence took place within the ram but the FIR has been lodged ther No.4. It is argued that since the Polic l jurisdiction in the matter, hence the on has no power to investigate as wel ior counsel placed reliance upon Man attisgarh & Anr. (2016) 9 SCC 1 te of West Bengal and others (2022 Manoj Kumar Sharma’s case (su was that the concerned Police Station te the matter alleging commission of IPC because none of the part of the a erritorial jurisdiction of that police stat g to the provisions of Sections 177 an is uncertain in which of several local e offence is committed in one local o or tried by a Court having jurisdictio 22 (2003) 6 SCC 175, wherein, it was petitioners has laid much stress on rusts are existing at Ghaziabad, the one of the petitioners is resident of in the jurisdiction of Police Station, d therein only for the benefit of the e Police Station DLF Gurugram has nce the Investigating Officer of this as well. To buttress his arguments, Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. C 1 and Vijay Kumar Ghai and 2022) 7 SCC 124. e (supra), the contention raised by Station had no territorial jurisdiction on of offences under Section 304-B f the alleged offence was committed ce station. The Hon’ble Apex Court 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. observed local areas an offence is committed, local area, the said offence can be sdiction over any such local area. It t was ss on , the nt of tion, f the has this ents, Vs. nd d by ction B itted ourt rved , n be a. It AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- was observed also SHO does not ha investigation is ov for lodging the FIR forward the case t the matter. 29. In Vi emanating from an a MoU based on w 01 at Calcutta. Th had been created thereby declining t 30. It is jurisdiction in crim observed by the H that the question o place of commissi both of which con victim was found o was committed, w matter of an offen Bhattacharjeet’s c -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 23 d also that at the stage of investigati not have territorial jurisdiction to inv n is over, if the officer arrives at a conc FIR has not arisen within his terri case to the Magistrate concerned emp Vijay Kumar Ghai’s case (supr rom an investment made by the comp d on which the complainant had filed tta. The FIR was lodged at Delhi. It reated in Delhi. The order passed b lining to quash the FIR was set aside. It is well settled proposition of la in criminal cases revolves the place of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaus stion of territorial jurisdiction in crim mission of the offence, or place whe ch constitute an offence, ensues or th found or the place where the property i tted, was found or the place where the offence was required to be returned et’s case (supra) while considering t 23 stigation, it cannot be held that the to investigate the crime. After the a conclusion that the cause of action is territorial jurisdiction, then he will ed empowered to take cognizance of (supra), the origin of the dispute complainant finally culminated into filed 03 complaints, 02 at Delhi and hi. It was observed that jurisdiction ed by the High Court of Calcutta side. of law that question of territorial ace of commission of offence, it was aushik Chatterjee’s case (supra), n criminal cases revolves around the ce where the consequence of an act, s or the place where the accused or ty in respect of which the offence ere the property forming the subject turned or accounted for etc. In Asit ering the provisions of Sections 178, t the r the ction will ce of spute into i and ction cutta torial t was ra), d the act, d or ence bject sit 178, AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 181(4) and 156(3 commission of Court/Magistrate said Court, Magist 31. The c negotiations and c had taken place in is situated at Guru hence it has jurisd reliance upon Sa Hon’ble Supreme collected by an Inv at a conclusion tha have no territorial of Cr.P.C., when was committed, o said offence can b of the local areas proceeding of a po power to investig offence cannot be by the Police. In Jain (2009) 13 SC -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 24 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble of even a part of offence wit strate concerned, is sufficient for exe Magistrate in relation to the offence co The case as set up by the respondent and conversations qua availing of lo lace in the corporate office of the resp t Gurugram within the jurisdiction of jurisdiction to conduct investigation in Satwinder Kaur’s case (supra), preme Court that at the stage of th an Investigating Officer cannot be jud ion that the police station officer of a itorial jurisdiction. It has to be stated when it is uncertain in which of the tted, or where it consists of several ac can be inquired into or tried by a Cou l areas. As per Section 156(2) an e of a police officer shall be challenged vestigate. In the opinion of this Co not be unilaterally determined withou ce. In this regard, reliance is placed 3 SCC 241, wherein it was observe 24 n’ble Supreme Court observed that e within the jurisdiction of the or exercising of jurisdiction by the nce committed. . ndent No.4 complainant is that since of loan and repayment of the same he respondent No.4-Company which ion of the concerned Police Station, tion in the matter. This Court draws ra), wherein it was observed by of the investigation, the material be judicially scrutinized for arriving r of a particular police station would stated that in view of Section 178(C) f the several local areas an offence eral acts done in different areas, the a Court having jurisdiction over any ) an embargo is contained that no lenged on the ground that he has no his Court also, the situs or part of without completion of investigation laced upon Rajiv Modi Vs. Sanjay bserved by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the the since same hich tion, raws by terial iving ould 8(C) ence , the r any t no s no rt of ation jay ourt AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- that from the alleg that the whole or Court can certain t raised cannot be ac 32. It is 17.7.2021. The f registration of FIR ordered to be stay against them. Tw Jhandu Pharmac Court observed as -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 25 e allegations made in the complaint, i ole or part of the cause of action has ertain taken cognizance of the complai t be accepted. It is also important to note that The first petition was filed on 26.0 of FIR by the two petitioners and the i be stayed by passing an order that no . Two of the petitioners had not e rmaceutical Works Limited case ( ved as under :- 11. …the powers possessed by 482of the Code are very wide power requires great caution careful to see that its decision based on sound principles. The exercised to stifle a legitimate being the highest court of a S from giving a prima facie d entire facts are incomplete a evidence has not been collec court and the issues involved, of magnitude and cannot be without sufficient material, of can be laid down in regard Court will exercise its ex 25 laint, if prima facie opinion is taken on has arisen in its jurisdiction this omplaint. As such, the arguments so that the FIR was registered on n 26.07.2021 i.e. within 9 days of d the investigation proceedings were that no coercive step shall be taken not even joined investigation. In se (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme d by the High Court under Section wide and the very plenitude of the tion in its exercise. Court must be ision in exercise of this power is . The inherent power should not be mate prosecution. The High Court f a State should normally refrain ie decision in a case where the ete and hazy, more so when the ollected and produced before the lved, whether factual or legal, are t be seen in their true perspective l, of course, no hard-and-fast rule ard to cases in which the High s extraordinary jurisdiction of aken this ts so on s of were aken . In reme ion the be s be urt ain the the the are tive ule igh of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 26 quashing the proceeding at proper for the High Court complainant in the light of determine whether a conviction such premise arrive at a concl to be quashed. It would be err before it and conclude tha proceeded with. In a procee exercise of the inherent power called for only in a case w disclose any offence or is frivo If the allegations set out in th the offence of which cogniza Magistrate, it is open to the Hi exercise of the inherent powe Code. It is not, however, ne meticulous analysis of the cas whether the case would end i complaint has to be read as a consideration of the allegation made on oath of the complain offence or offences are disclos show that the complaint is ma in that event there would be n by the High Court. When an police station and an offence fides of the informant would b is the material collected d evidence led in court which d person. The allegations of ma 26 at any stage. It would not be urt to analyze the case of the of all probabilities in order to iction would be sustainable and on onclusion that the proceedings are e erroneous to assess the material that the complaint cannot be oceeding instituted on complaint, owers to quash the proceedings is e where the complaint does not frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. in the complaint do not constitute gnizance has been taken by the e High Court to quash the same in powers under Section 482 of the r, necessary that thereshould be e case before the trial to find out nd in conviction or acquittal. The as a whole. If it appears that on ations in the light of the statement lainant that the ingredients of the sclosed and there is no material to s mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, be no justification for interference an information is lodged at the ence is registered, then the mala ld be of secondary importance. It d during the investigation and ch decides the fate of the accused f mala fides against the informant be the to on are ial be int, s is not ive. ute the in the be out he on ent the l to us, nce the ala . It nd sed ant AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 33. In Sk following observa -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 27 are of no consequence andcan for quashing the proceedings. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pri bservations were made by Hon’ble Sup “41. It is needless to point o of the Privy Council in Kin Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the l would not thwart any investiga no cognizable offence or offen the first Information report tha investigation to go on. As cauti Haryana v. BhajanLal 1992 Su quashing should be exercise circumspection and that too in examining a complaint, the qua Court cannot embark upon an genuineness or otherwise of th or in the complaint. In S.M. Da 7 SCC 659 this Court aga proceedings ought not to be Quashing of a complaint should rarity than an ordinary rule. In held that if a perusal of the fir disclosure of an offence even b from-usurping the jurisdiction organs of the State operate activities and one ought not to t 27 dcannot by themselves be the basis s. a Private Limited case (supra), the le Supreme Court :- nt out that ever since the decision King Emperor v. KhwajaNazir the law is well settled that Courts stigation. It is only in cases where ffence of any kind is disclosed in t that the Court will not permit an cautioned by this Court in State of 2 Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of rcised very sparingly and with o in the rarest of rare cases. While e quashing of which is sought, the an enquiry as to the reliability or f the allegations made in the FIR . Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) again cautioned that criminal be scuttled at the initial stage. ould rather be an exception and a . In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court e first information report leads to en broadly, law courts are barred tion of the police, since the two rate in two specific spheres of t to tread over the other sphere." sis the ion zir rts ere in an of of ith ile the or IR 01) nal ge. d a urt to red wo of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 34. Relia (supra), wherein settled principle o no scrutiny to wh genuine and also suspicion. It was allegations, a Firs not been committ FIR lodged on me 35. In St SCC, the Hon’ble -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 28 Reliance can also be placed upon erein the Hon’ble Supreme Court h iple of law that when an investigation to what extent the allegations in an also that an First Information Repor It was also observed that viewed thr a First Information Report based on mmitted, would obviously be of a hi on merely suspicion that a crime has b State of Maharashtra Versus A n’ble Supreme Court has held as unde “13. The power of quashing c exercised very sparingly and too in the rarest of rare cas justified in embarking upon an genuineness or otherwise o FIR/complaint, unless the alleg and inherently improbable so ever reach such a conclus inherent powers of the Cour jurisdiction on the Court to a caprice. However, the Court, u neither intervene at an uncall pedal the course of justic Investigation/proceedings. The 227 of the Constitution of Indi 28 upon Aman Kumar Singh’s case ourt had observed that it being the gation is yet to start, there should be in an FIR are probable, reliable or Report can be registered merely on ed through the prism of gravity of ed on “probability” of a crime have f a higher degree as compared to a has been committed. us Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 s under :- ng criminal proceedings has to be and with circumspection and that cases and the Court cannot be n an enquiry as to the reliability or se of allegations made in the allegations are so patently absurd e so that no prudent person can clusion. The extraordinary and ourt do not confer an arbitrary to act according to its whims or urt, under its inherent powers, can ncalled for stage nor can it "soft- ustice" at a crucial stage of The provisions of Articles 226, India and Section 482 of the Code ase the ld be le or y on ty of have to a 9 be hat be or the urd an nd ary or an - of 26, de AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- 36. In vie is explicit that tho Section 482 of the intervene at an un crucial stage of In is made out agains should be loath to in this context can (2012) 4 SCC 547 37. Furth is of civil nature concerned, it may and criminal rem essentially indepe litigation cannot a -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 29 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( are a device to advance justic power of judicial review is disc exercised to prevent the mi correcting some grave errors administration of justice rema there are no limits of power o power, the more due care and invoking these powers In view of the ratio of law as laid do hat though this Court has extra-ordina of the Code. However, under these an uncalled for stage nor can it soft e of Investigation/proceedings unless a against those Incharge of investigatio ath to interfere at early/premature sta ext can be placed upon State of Oris 547 wherein similar observations w Further, so far as the argument that t nature and hence no criminal proc it may be stated that the well settled p l remedies are not mutually inclusi independent in their content and seq nnot act as a bar to the investigation o 29 73 (hereinafter called as "CrPC") justice and not to frustrate it. The discretionary, however, it must be miscarriage of justice and for rors and to ensure that stream of emains clean and pure. However, er of the Court, but the more the and caution is to be exercised in aid down in the above cited cases, it ordinary and inherent powers under these powers, the Court can neither t soft-pedal the course of justice at a nless a case of gross abuse of power tigation. Otherwise, the High Court ure stage of investigation. Reliance Orissa V. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan ions were made. t that the dispute between the parties l proceeding could be initiated, is ttled proposition of law is that civil inclusive but are co-extensive and nd sequence. Pendency of a civil ation of a cognizable offence. Civil C") he be for of er, the in es, it nder ither at a ower ourt iance an rties d, is civil and civil Civil AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- and criminal proce can be placed upo Askar Hadi Ali A wherein it was o proceeding is not merely a civil disp contract, that does the only remedy, a be an abuse of th committed during that the complaint Reliance in this co GS and Another ( and Others AIR ( SCC 132 wherein 38. As pe that the petitioners the agreement da between the partie criminal proceedin petitioners that on agreement and the trustee way-back i -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 30 l proceedings can proceed simultaneo d upon to the observations made by H li Augusten Imam Vs. Delhi Admi was observed that it is trite law tha is not a ground for quashing the FIR il dispute. Simply because there is a t does not by itself clothe the Court to dy, and the initiation of criminal pr e of the process of the Court. Sim during a commercial transaction, it w plaint did not warrant further investig this context can also be placed upon her (2020) 14 SCC 552, Rajesh Ba IR (1999) SC 1216 and Lee Kun H herein similar observations were made. As per the discussion made above, a tioners had dishonest intent since the ent dated 08.03.2025, hence, despite parties was commercial/civil in natu ceedings cannot be initiated. So far as hat only petitioner P. Paramsivam Ma nd the argument that petitioner Sharm back in the year 2016/2017 and hence 30 ltaneously. Reliance in this context e by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed dministration (2009) 5 SCC 528, aw that mere institution of a civil e FIR or to hold that the dispute is e is a remedy provided for breach of ourt to conclude that civil remedy is inal proceedings in any manner, will Simply because the offence was n, it would not be sufficient to hold nvestigation and if necessary, a trial. upon K. Jagdish Vs. Udaya Kumar Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi un Hee Vs. State of UP (2012) 3 made.
ve, a prima facie case for presuming ce the very inception of execution of spite the fact that the transaction n nature, it cannot be stated that the o far as the argument as raised by the m Mahalingam was signatory to the r Sharmila Anand had resigned as a hence no vicarious liability could be ntext yed 28, civil te is ch of dy is , will was hold trial. ar lhi ) 3 ming on of ction t the y the o the as a ld be AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- fastened upon them relied upon by the IPC. In the peculi could not be fasten persons incharge vicariously liable. Hon’ble Supreme roped in only wh coupled with crim vicarious liability. time of execution merits of the alleg were not involved considered by this agency also to that stated that the FIR 39. With Mahalingam for t agency, it may be investigation can exceptional cases investigation, whe where investigatio -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 31 on them is concerned, in S.K. Alagh’s by the petitioners, the accused were bo peculiar circumstances of the case, it w fastened upon MD, Director or other harge of the affairs of the compan liable. In Sunil Bharti Mittal’s case preme Court that when a company is ly when there is sufficient incrimin th criminal intent or the statutory re bility. The petitioners were admitted cution of agreement dated 08.03.201 e allegations nor the contention that on volved in day-to-day conduct of bus by this Court. Investigation has to be to that extent, as such, on the basis of he FIR has become liable to be quashed With regard to the prayer made for transfer of investigation to CB ay be mentioned that the well settled n can be transferred from State Pol cases, where it is necessary to do ju n, where it is necessary for a fair, hone stigation by State lacks credibility; w 31 gh’s case (supra), which has been ere booked under Section 406 of the se, it was held that vicarious liability other officers of a company and the mpany and in control thereof are case (supra), it was observed by any is accused, its Directors can be criminating evidence against them ory regime attracts the doctrine of mittedly trustees of the Trusts at the 03.2015. At this stage, neither the that one or the other of the petitioner of business of the Trusts cannot be to be conducted by the investigating sis of the plea so raised, it cannot be uashed. made by the petitioner Santosh to CBI or some other independent settled proposition of law is that the te Police to CBI only in rare and do justice and instil confidence in r, honest and complete investigation; ility; where the State officials and en f the bility d the f are d by n be them e of t the r the ioner t be ating ot be tosh dent the and ce in tion; and AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- authorities are inv investigation is international rami complete justice a be made to the obs 40. Relia Rural Engineerin wherein it was ob an enquiry by th considering the m does not disclose other similar agen 1997 CRI-LJ 63 investigated by a p offence be invest investigated by an 41. In St Rights (2010) 2 S observed that the exercised sparing becomes necessary or where the inci -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 32 are involved and are likely to influe n is biased and where the incide l ramifications or where such an orde stice and enforcing fundamental right the observations made in K.V. Rajendr Reliance can also be placed upon Se eering Services, UP Vs. Sahngoo R as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme by the CBI should be passed only the material on record, comes to the close a prima facie case calling for in r agency. Reference can also be mad 63, it was observed that no one by a particular agency. An aggrieved investigated properly, but he has n by any particular agency of his choice State of WB Vs. Committee fo ) 2 SCC Cr. 401, a Constitution Ben at the extra-ordinary power for sendin paringly, cautiously and in excepti cessary to provide credibility and inst e incident may have national and i 32 influence investigation and where incident may have national and n order may be necessary for doing l rights. Reliance in this context can jendran’s case (supra). Secretary Minor Irrigation and oo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521, preme Court that an order directing only when the High Court, after to the conclusion that such material for investigation by the CBI or any e made to CBI Vs. Rajesh Gandhi; one can insist that an offence be rieved person can only claim that the has no right to claim that it be choice. ee for Protection of Democratic n Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court sending the matter to CBI must be xceptional circumstances where it d instil confidence in investigations and inter-national ramifications or e and oing t can nd , cting after terial r any hi; e be t the it be tic ourt st be re it tions s or AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- where such an ord the fundamental r State of Gujarat ( persons do not hav choose as to whic committed by them investigation agen show that any su of case to CBI. N levelled, are being appointment of i investigated by a p the contention ra 42. As a considered opinion stage when the pet prima facie disclo ground for thwarti context, this Cou Hon’ble Supreme SCC 195, wherein also settled by the investigation or du -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 33 an order may be necessary for doing c ental rights. Reliance can also be pl rat (2011) 5 SCC 179, wherein it w ot have a say in the appointment of in o which investigating agency must in y them. The petitioner has only raise n agency. No police officer has been n uch exceptional circumstance is None of the officers or other party being named. The accused cannot t of investigating agency nor he ca by a particular agency. As such this C aised by the petitioner Santosh M As a sequel to the discussion as ma opinion that since the investigation of the petitions had been filed and as the disclose a case for commission of a hwarting the investigation and quashin s Court also finds support from th preme Court in Union of India V. P herein it was observed that the legal p by the judicial authorities that the Cou n or during the course of investigation 33 oing complete justice and enforcing be placed upon Narmada Bai Vs. ein it was observed that the accused t of investigating agency and cannot ust investigate the alleged offences ly raised bald allegations against the been named. The allegations do not s made out that justifies transfer r party against whom allegations are ot have any say in the matter of he can insist that an offence be h this Court finds no reason to accept Mahalingam. as made above, this Court is of the ion of this case was at its very initial as the allegations levelled in the FIR, a cognizable offence, as such no uashing of FIR is made out. In this om the observations made by the V. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 legal position is absolutely clear and e Court would not interfere with the igation which would mean from the rcing Vs. used nnot nces t the t r s are er of e be t f the nitial FIR, h no this the ) 6 r and h the the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28636- CRM-M-32624- CRM-M-32887- time of the lodgi report by the offic Cr.P.C., this field remaining citation counsel for the circumstances of t 43. Havin position as explain quashed as expou finds no compellin neither any ground Accordingly, the p 44. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 45. A ph file(s). 02.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) -2021 (O&M) 34 lodging of the first information rep e officer in charge of the police station field being exclusively reserved for itations of law which have been re the petitioners are not applicable es of this case and hence no reliance ca Having noticed the facts and circumst explained above, as well as the param expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court mpelling ground for quashing of the F ground for transferring of the investig , the petitions are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a A photocopy of this order be place (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No 34 on report till the submission of the station in Court under Section 173(2) d for the investigating agency. The een relied upon by learned Senior licable to the peculiar facts and ance can be placed upon them. rcumstances of the case and the legal parameters in which an FIR can be ourt from time to time, this Court f the FIR, at this stage is made out, nvestigation to the CBI is made out. e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner. placed on record of the connected (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No f the 3(2) he enior and gal n be ourt out, out. l not case ected AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.