Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Shrikant Ojha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2466 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3123 of 2026)
Decided On : 12-05-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 193(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 429, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 and 120B – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Bar on submission of Police report by Investigating Officer – Court can exercise discretion for not taking coercive steps till matter is pending but direction not to file charge-sheet is wholly unjust – Such direction deserves to be set aside and Investigating Officer directed to complete investigation and file its report under Section 193(3) of BNSS – Considering fact that various FIR have been registered and land belonging to society has been sold without permission of society frustrating object and purpose of society, it is appropriate to appoint an SIT for unimpaired and unobstructed investigation and to save land of society from clutches of those who are acting contrary to object and purpose of society for their own benefit – Directions issued for constitution of SIT and further action.(Paras 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 06.02.2026 of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2026 filed by respondent No. 2 herein, relying upon judgment of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) SCC Online 1948 and directing that investigation may go on but police report under Section 193(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall not be submitted by Investigating Officer in Court till pendency of present writ petition, present appeal has been filed by complainant.
Findings of Court:
All accused persons shall cooperate in SIT as well as in investigation. SIT shall deal with all people at par uninfluenced by unknown force and to maintain the rule of law.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
Key Points: - The Court set aside a blanket High Court order that directed no police report under BNSS Section 193(3) and directed the Investigating Officer to complete investigation and file the report under BNSS Section 193(3) for FIR No. 642 of 2025 (!) - It directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police with two Inspectors to take over the investigation to prevent land sale and forgery related to the society’s lands (!) - The SIT is to be constituted under the supervision of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary with the Registrar of Societies as a member to uncover how lands were alienated or transferred without permission (!) - The SIT report should be submitted to the High Court to aid pending matters; no coercive action shall be taken against respondent No. 2 until SIT submits its report and investigation is completed (!) - The judgment emphasizes unimpaired and unobstructed investigation into land scams and directs cooperation from all accused in SIT and investigation (!) (!) - It references overruling of the Bombay High Court’s interim order in the context of BNSS and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni case, clarifying scope of cognizance and BNSS remedies (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 06.02.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2026 filed by respondent No. 2 herein, relying upon the judgment of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) SCC Online 1948 and directing that investigation may go on but the police report under Section 193(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) shall not be submitted by the Investigating Officer in Court till the pendency of the present writ petition, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.
3. The facts unfolded as stated are that Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India (in short, “Society”) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 bearing registration No. S-2366 of 1963 with registered office at Delhi and administrative office at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The said society was set up under the divine guidance of His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for dissemination of spiritual upliftment and benefit of the society at large. The said society has freehold immoveable properties. As per the description given in the list of dates, one G. Ram Chandramohan has sold the land of the society of villages Devri and Khamaria, Takhtpur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. In June 2011, a complaint of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery by unauthorized group was promptly submitted to the Registrar of Societies. Additionally, Civil Suit No.38-A of 2011 seeking declaration of execution of such sale deeds as unauthorized and void, was filed by the society and same is pending before the Ld. Presiding Officer, District Court Takhtpur, Bilaspur. FIR No. 328/2011 was also registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 429, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) against G. Ram Chandramohan and the same is pending for adjudication.
4. On 17.12.2011, the society has also filed CS (OS) No. 3221 of 2011 titled as Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India and Ors. Vs. PT. L.N. Sharma & Ors., seeking injunction and to restrain unauthorized groups from preparing forged office bearers, which is also now pending in Saket Court on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction.
5. The High Court in CS (OS) No. 3221/2011 (later renumbered to CS No. 9984/2016) vide order dated 20.12.2011 granted ex-parte injunction in favor of the society and directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to title and possession of the immovable properties of the society till further orders, restraining defendant not to create any third party interest without leave of the Court. A police complaint filed on 07.07.2012 is pending in Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi. On 22.11.2014, FIR No. 486/2014 was also registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 and 120B of the IPC against the unauthorized group.
6. In the meantime, Civil Suit filed at Takhtpur, Bilaspur was allowed holding that the society was the owner of the lands that had been illegally and fraudulently sold by unauthorized group of illegitimate office bearers, therefore, the sale deeds were declared not binding on the society. High Court of Chhattisgarh in MCRC No. 7232/2018 and MCRC No. 1178/2019 granted bail to G. Ram Chandramohan in connection with FIR No. 328/2011 and FIR No. 468/2014 respectively, though petitions seeking cancellation of bail filed by the society are pending.
7. On account of disposing the property of society, FIR No. 294 of 2023 at PS Noida Sector 39 was registered under Section 420, 467 and 511 of IPC against G. Ram Chandramohan. Another FIR was registered on 20.10.2023 bearing No. 259 of 2023 at Police Station Sunera District Shajapur under Sections 420, 34 and 511 of IPC. Simultaneously, on 11.01.2024, FIR No. 20
Bar on submission of Police report by Investigating Officer – Court can exercise discretion for not taking coercive steps till matter is pending before Writ Court but direction not to file charge-she....
The court held that registration of FIR is mandatory when allegations disclose cognizable offences, and any discretion to omit such registration is legally impermissible.
The court affirmed that ongoing investigations by CID Crime are valid despite no FIR being registered, emphasizing that courts should not interfere unless exceptional circumstances arise.
(1) Quashing of criminal case – High Court is justified in quashing complaint and FIR at a stage when Magistrate had merely directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(2) Quashing of criminal....
A second FIR cannot be filed for the same offences due to the principles set forth in Section 162, CrPC, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is paramount in determining maintainab....
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
(1) Interim order of stay of investigation during pendency of quashing petition can be passed with circumspection.(2) When investigation by police is in progress, court should not go into merits of a....
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
