JUDGMENT :

M. R. MENGDEY, J.

1. Draft amendment is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. By filing the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs: -

“A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present Petition;

B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR No.11210015260005 of 2026 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat dated 22.02.2026 and all proceedings arising thereof.

C. During pendency and till final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the investigation in connection with FIR No.11210015260005 of 2026 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat dated 22.02.2026 and all proceedings arising thereof.

AND/OR

During the pendency and till final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct no coercive steps against the Petitioners and extend the interim relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed in SLP Crl. Diary No.10942 of 2026.

D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other or further orders as deemed fit and in the interest of justice.”

3. The FIR being No.11210015260005 of 2026 came to be registered with the DCB Police Station of Surat City on 21.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 386, 389, 120(B), 34 and 506(2) of the IPC against the petitioners herein and the other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present sets of petitions.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Arjun M. Joshi for petitioners. He submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR can be bifurcated in three segments.Firstly, it is alleged that the petitioners have siphoned away the amount of Rs.1,900/- crores by resorting to illegal means. The second allegation is that the money which was siphoned away by the petitioners, was rooted back to the company through Hongkong where one of the petitioners was residing and the third set of allegations is that the signatures of the first informant, his wife and his father were forged on certain documents. He further submitted that initially the first informant had invested the amount of Rs.21,50,000/- in the company and out of Five lakhs shares of the company, Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand shares were allotted to the first informant and his other family members. Thus, at the relevant time, the first informant and his family members were holding 43% shares of the company. Thereafter, at regular intervals, the share capital of the company was increased and resultantly, the numbers of shares had also increased. In April 2010, 9,84,000 (Nine Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand) shares were allotted to one of the petitioners herein and the first informant very well knew about the same and because of the subsequent allotment of shares which was already in the knowledge of the first informant, the shareholding of the first informant had gradually reduced from 43% to 6%. It is alleged in the FIR that after the shareholding of the first informant was reduced to 6%, some further allotment of shares was done in favour of one of the petitioners herein and for the said purpose, the signatures of the first informant were allegedly forged on certain documents by which the first informant was shown to have been offered the shares in question which offer was renunciated by the first informant. He submitted that the shareholding of the first informant was substantially reduced from 43% to 6% under his own knowledge and if the petitioners herein had any intention to cheat the first informant, it would have been done when the shareholding of the first informant was reduced from 43% to 6%. It is an admitted position on record; no such forgery had taken place at the relevant time. As per