Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11375 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Section 528 of BNSS] – Quashing petition – Three FIRs were registered in three different places – It is alleged that there was clear cheating involved in denying refund, which was already granted, but surreptitiously credited to another person’s account of same name – It is submitted that dispute if at all is civil in nature and there is no cause for initiating criminal complaint – It is also argued that there are three different cases filed before various courts on the very same set of facts – Parties are ad idem that other proceedings need not be proceeded with – Charge-sheet has been filed, in which circumstance, there is no reason why petitioners should be taken into custody – Petitioners shall appear before jurisdictional court within a period of one month upon which they shall be granted bail and charges read over on same day – Bail shall be granted on such conditions as are found satisfactory by Jurisdictional Court, at its discretion – Petitioners shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of case. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra were before High Court seeking to quash the same, declined by impugned judgment. The contention of petitioners that there was a mala fide intention to cause purposeful harassment in registering the FIR, was rejected by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The complainant will be entitled to be represented by Interim Resolution Professional, who would also be entitled to seek summoning of any of former Officials/Directors/responsible persons, conversant with subject matter of the offence prosecuted, to be examined as witnesses.
Result : Special Leave Petition disposed of with directions.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court has clarified that arrest is not always necessary once a charge-sheet has been filed, and the petitioners can be granted bail upon appearing before the court within a specified period (!) .
The petitioners, who are accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025, had initially sought to quash the FIR through the High Court, which was declined. The High Court directed their appearance before the trial court within 60 days and granted liberty to apply for bail, emphasizing that bail can be considered as per existing precedents (!) .
The case involves allegations of cheating related to the denial of a refund, which was surreptitiously credited to another person's account of the same name. The accused's conduct is alleged to involve collusion and conspiracy to cheat a corporate entity. The corporate entity is currently before the National Company Law Tribunal, with an Interim Resolution Professional involved (!) .
Multiple FIRs were registered in different locations concerning the same set of facts, and some proceedings have been stayed or withdrawn. The investigation concluded with a final report indicating that the allegations were not substantiated, and the proceedings in some cases have been closed or not pressed (!) (!) (!) .
The parties agree that the other proceedings referred to need not continue, and the present FIR proceedings should proceed with the understanding that the petitioners will appear before the court, be granted bail, and cooperate in the case's expeditious disposal (!) .
The Court has directed that the petitioners appear before the jurisdictional court within one month, upon which they shall be granted bail and charges read over on the same day, with bail conditions to be decided by the court at its discretion (!) .
The complainant will be entitled to be represented by the Interim Resolution Professional, who can seek to summon responsible persons or officials involved in the matter for examination as witnesses (!) .
The Supreme Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petition with the above directions, and all pending applications are also disposed of accordingly (!) .
These points encapsulate the Court’s reasoning, directions regarding bail and proceedings, and the procedural posture of the case.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The Petitioners, accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra were before the High Court seeking to quash the same, declined by the impugned judgment. The contention of the petitioners that there was a mala fide intention to cause purposeful harassment in registering the FIR, was rejected by the High Court. It was also directed that the petitioners appear before the Trial Court within 60 days, in which circumstance liberty was also granted to apply for regular/anticipatory bail, directed to be considered as per the existing precedents of this Court.
2. Before us, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that the dispute if at all is civil in nature and there is no cause for initiating a criminal complaint. It is also argued that there are three different cases filed before various courts on the very same set of facts.
3. Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that there was clear cheating involved in denying the refund, which was already granted, but surreptitiously credited to another person’s account of the same name. The persistent demand for refund even after it was paid was a result of a collusion and conspiracy entered into between the accused to cheat the corporate entity, the 3rd respondent represents. It is also submitted that the corporate entity is now before the National Company Law Tribunal (for brevity, ‘NCLT’) and the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the NCLT has filed an impleading application.
4. At the outset, we allow IA No. 320742 of 2025 filed for impleading the Interim Resolution Professional.
5. Admittedly, three FIRs were registered in three different places as is revealed from paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, the State and the Police Department. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are extracted hereunder:
12. It has further been revealed that the Complainant in this case i.e. Nikhil Garg has also filed an the application u/s 173(4) Cr.P.C. being C.C. No. 19488/2025 dated 05.05.2025 on same facts before the Cout1 of Ld. CJM, Agra, seeking direction to SHO Hariparvat, Agra for registration of Fl R against Rajiv Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar s/o Ram Aasre, in which the Ld. CJM sought a report from P.S. Hariparvat Agra in compliance of which, a report dated 08.05.2025 was submitted to the Ld. CJM by P.S. Hariparvat Agra stating that that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and the complainant in that case Nikhil Garg was trying to give criminal color to a civil dispute. Subsequently, the said application was disposed by the Ld. CJM as not pressed.”
6. The proceedings in the FIR referred to in paragraph 11 have been stayed by the Additional Sessions Judge and that referred to in paragraph 12 has been withdrawn as not pressed. It is the submission of both parties that the proceedings which were sought to be quashed before the High Court, the order rejecting which is impugned herein, has proceeded to the stage of filing of chargesheet which again is clear from paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit of
Arrest is not always necessary where charge-sheet has been filed.
(1) Merely because on same set of facts with same allegations and averments earlier complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge FIR with police station with same allegations and averments. However, ....
The court emphasized that inherent powers to quash proceedings should not be exercised if the petitioner fails to justify inordinate delays in filing the petition.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
