Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 28
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11375 of 2025
Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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,
Signature Not Verified
directed to be considered as per the existing
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.01.06
18:01:51 IST
Reason:
precedents of this Court.
Page 1 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
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
rd
Counsel appearing for the 3 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
rd
the corporate entity, the 3 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.
Page 2 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
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:
“ 11. It has further been revealed that the
Complainant in this case i.e. Nikhil Garg has
earlier filed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the Court of Ld. CMM, Karkardooma Court,
being CC No.1971 /2023 seeking direction to SHO
P.S. Madhuvihar, Delhi for registration of FIR
against Rajiv Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv
Kumar s/o Ram Aasre, in which vide order dated
13.09.2024, the Ld. JMFC-04, Karkardooma
directed registration of FIR against Rajiv Kumar s/o
Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar s/o Ram Aasre,
against which the Petitioner No.2 herein filed Crl.
Revision No. 206/2024 wherein vide order dated
01.10.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II,
Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi, the operation of
the above order dated 13.09.2024 of Ld. JMFC-04
had been stayed.
Page 3 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
chargesheet which again is clear from paragraph 17 of
the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 which is
also extracted hereunder:
“ 17. It is pertinent to mention that after
investigation, the I.O. has concluded the
investigation and submitted in the concerned
Court on 11.09.2025 a Final Report No. 144/2025
dated 07.07.2025 in connection with FIR bearing
Case Crime No. 396/2025, P.S. Tajganj, Agra
concluding that the allegations levelled by the
complainant against the accused persons have not
been substantiated from the investigation. True
translated copy of Final. Report in Case Crime No.
396/2025, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE CA-l (Pg 9
to 19). ”
7. The parties are ad idem that the other proceedings as
referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 need not be
proceeded with. The proceedings by way of C.C. No.
19488 of 2025 filed before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Agra has already concluded since it was not
pressed. The proceedings before the learned Chief
Magistrate, Karkadooma Court, C.C. No.1971 of 2023
Page 5 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
shall also stand closed, without prejudice to the
contentions of either of the parties. The Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi shall
also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2024 filed
before him as not pressed. Insofar as the present
proceedings in CC No. 396 of 2025 from Police Station
Tajganj, District Agra, chargesheet has been filed, in
which circumstance, there is no reason why the
petitioners should be taken into custody.
8. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional
court within a period of one month from today upon
which they shall be granted bail and the charges read
over on the same day. The bail shall be granted on such
conditions as are found satisfactory by the jurisdictional
court, at its discretion. It is further directed that the
petitioners cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the
case.
9. The complainant will be entitled to be represented by
the Interim Resolution Professional, who would also be
entitled to seek the summoning of any of the former
Officials/Directors/responsible persons, conversant
Page 6 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
with the subject matter of the offence prosecuted, to be
examined as witnesses.
10. With the above directions, the Special Leave Petition is
disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
...………….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 06, 2026.
Page 7 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
2026 INSC 28
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11375 of 2025
Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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,
Signature Not Verified
directed to be considered as per the existing
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.01.06
18:01:51 IST
Reason:
precedents of this Court.
Page 1 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
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
rd
Counsel appearing for the 3 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
rd
the corporate entity, the 3 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.
Page 2 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
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:
“ 11. It has further been revealed that the
Complainant in this case i.e. Nikhil Garg has
earlier filed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the Court of Ld. CMM, Karkardooma Court,
being CC No.1971 /2023 seeking direction to SHO
P.S. Madhuvihar, Delhi for registration of FIR
against Rajiv Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv
Kumar s/o Ram Aasre, in which vide order dated
13.09.2024, the Ld. JMFC-04, Karkardooma
directed registration of FIR against Rajiv Kumar s/o
Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar s/o Ram Aasre,
against which the Petitioner No.2 herein filed Crl.
Revision No. 206/2024 wherein vide order dated
01.10.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II,
Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi, the operation of
the above order dated 13.09.2024 of Ld. JMFC-04
had been stayed.
Page 3 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
chargesheet which again is clear from paragraph 17 of
the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 which is
also extracted hereunder:
“ 17. It is pertinent to mention that after
investigation, the I.O. has concluded the
investigation and submitted in the concerned
Court on 11.09.2025 a Final Report No. 144/2025
dated 07.07.2025 in connection with FIR bearing
Case Crime No. 396/2025, P.S. Tajganj, Agra
concluding that the allegations levelled by the
complainant against the accused persons have not
been substantiated from the investigation. True
translated copy of Final. Report in Case Crime No.
396/2025, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE CA-l (Pg 9
to 19). ”
7. The parties are ad idem that the other proceedings as
referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 need not be
proceeded with. The proceedings by way of C.C. No.
19488 of 2025 filed before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Agra has already concluded since it was not
pressed. The proceedings before the learned Chief
Magistrate, Karkadooma Court, C.C. No.1971 of 2023
Page 5 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
shall also stand closed, without prejudice to the
contentions of either of the parties. The Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi shall
also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2024 filed
before him as not pressed. Insofar as the present
proceedings in CC No. 396 of 2025 from Police Station
Tajganj, District Agra, chargesheet has been filed, in
which circumstance, there is no reason why the
petitioners should be taken into custody.
8. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional
court within a period of one month from today upon
which they shall be granted bail and the charges read
over on the same day. The bail shall be granted on such
conditions as are found satisfactory by the jurisdictional
court, at its discretion. It is further directed that the
petitioners cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the
case.
9. The complainant will be entitled to be represented by
the Interim Resolution Professional, who would also be
entitled to seek the summoning of any of the former
Officials/Directors/responsible persons, conversant
Page 6 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025
with the subject matter of the offence prosecuted, to be
examined as witnesses.
10. With the above directions, the Special Leave Petition is
disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
...………….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 06, 2026.
Page 7 of 7
SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025