Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 482
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3123 of 2026)
SHRIKANT OJHA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UP & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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
1
Maharashtra and directing that investigation may go on but the
police report under Section 193(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.05.12
18:00:16 IST
Reason:
Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) shall not be submitted by the
1
(2025) SCC Online 1948
1
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
2
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.
3
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 of 2024 has also been
registered at Police Station Bargi District Jabalpur under Sections
420, 409, 120B and 34 of IPC against G. Ram Chandramohan and
Awadesh Pandey. This was based on forged power of attorney and
fraudulently disposition of the property of the society. FIR No. 68 of
2024 of Police Station Shajapur has also been registered under
4
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC regarding sale of 199 bigha 8
biswa of land. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case
No. 12972 of 2024 dismissed the quashing petition filed by G. Ram
Chandramohan and Awadesh Pandey in connection with FIR No.
20/2024 PS Bargi.
8. Similarly, for disposing the property of society, forgery and
cheating, various other litigations are pending against the persons
who are usurping the management of the society. For the present
case, FIR No. 642 of 2025 in Police Station Noida Sector 39 was
registered in addition to FIR No. 294 of 2023 and 152 of 2025 already
registered at PS Noida Sector 39. In the FIR it was alleged that G.
Ram Chandramohan, Akash Malviya, Pradip Singh on the basis of
forged documents sold the land of the society to M/s Singhvahini
Infraprojects Private Limited. It is to clarify that respondent No.2
herein along with one Pradip Singh are the directors of M/s
Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited. In relation to this FIR
quashment petition was filed by respondent No. 2 herein before the
High Court wherein the impugned order was passed.
5
9. This Court while issuing notice, initially thought that the lands
of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi were government allotted lands given on
lease but during the course of hearing it was informed by the
appellant that those lands are freehold, and this fact has not been
disputed by the counsel representing the State. During the course of
hearing, the appellant has strenuously urged that the land of the
society was being sold by unauthorized person on the basis of forged
documents, and in this regard, various FIRs were registered
including the present FIR, i.e. FIR No. 642 of 2025 in the Police
Station Noida Sector 39, of which quashment is sought before the
High Court by respondent No. 2.
10. After perusal of the contents of the present FIR, it is clear that
the earlier two FIR Nos. 294 of 2023 and 152 of 2025 were also
registered at the same Police Station against Akash Malviya and G.
Ram Chandramohan, even then they disposed the property of the
society taking the law in their hand, to M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects
Private Limited through its directors Pradip Singh and Raghvendra
Pratap Singh (respondent No. 2). It was indicated in the said FIR that
they are further selling the property of society without any permission
of the society by using the forged documents.
6
11. The High Court in the impugned order referred to the judgment
2
of Mohd. Imbrahim and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Jit Vinayak
3
Arolkar v. State of Goa and others to say that where there is a
civil dispute there cannot be any criminality and the FIR can be
quashed. While issuing notice, arrest was stayed and the
investigation was directed to be continued but filing of the charge-
sheet was restrained relying upon the judgment of Pradnya Pranjal
Kulkarni (supra) . However, in the facts where the land of the society
is being sold repeatedly, how far the recourse as taken by the High
Court is justified is an issue to consider.
12. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties at length
and found that society belonging to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, holds a
huge chunk of land at various places, management of which is in
dispute as reflected from the report of Office of Registrar of Society
filed by the State in its affidavit. For reference, relevant part of the
report is quoted hereunder:
“As per the records available in the file, there seems to be
a dispute among two groups of the management of the
society namely “The Spiritual Regeneration Movement of
India”; one group includes Sh. Ajay Prakash Srivastava
2
(2009) 8 SCC 751
3
(2025 INSC 31)
7
while the other includes Sh. Chandra Mohan and others.
Hence, as per the records available with this office, the
society has two different list of office bearers.”
13. It is further indicated in the affidavit that the matter concerning
the said society is currently pending before the High Court of Delhi
in W.P.(C) No. 8525/2024. It is a matter of concern to this Court in
particular when number of criminal cases on account of selling of the
property of the society have been registered at various jurisdiction in
different States, and the orders have also been passed by the
respective Courts, but those orders are not being duly observed by
those groups who are selling the property. Therefore, in such a case
wherein by merely referring some judgments of this Court indicating
that there is no criminality, interference to what extent is justified by
the Court when the FIR is under challenge before it under Article
226.
14. As per the judgment of this Court in the case of Neeharika
4
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , this Court has
categorically held in para 29 that: -
“29. Now so far as the legality of the impugned interim
order [P. Suresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020
SCC OnLine Bom 1711] passed by the High Court
4
(2021) 19 SCC 401
8
directing the investigating agency/police “not to adopt
any coercive steps” against the accused is concerned, for
the reasons stated hereinbelow, the same is
unsustainable:
29.1. That such a blanket interim order passed by the
High Court affects the powers of the investigating agency
to investigate into the cognizable offences, which
otherwise is a statutory right/duty of the police under the
relevant provisions of the CrPC.
29.2. That the interim order is a cryptic order.
29.3. That no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by
the High Court, while passing such a blanket order of “no
coercive steps to be adopted” by the police.
29.4. That it is not clear what the High Court meant by
passing the order [P. Suresh Kumar v. State of
Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711] of “not to
adopt any coercive steps”, as it is clear from the
impugned interim order that it was brought to the notice
of the High Court that so far as the accused are
concerned, they are already protected by the interim
protection granted by the learned Sessions Court, and
therefore there was no further reason and/or justification
for the High Court to pass such an interim order of “no
coercive steps to be adopted”. If the High Court meant by
passing such an interim order of “no coercive steps”
directing the investigating agency/police not to further
investigate, in that case, such a blanket order without
assigning any reasons whatsoever and without even
permitting the investigating agency to further investigate
into the allegations of the cognizable offence is otherwise
unsustainable. It has affected the right of the
investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable
offences. While passing such a blanket order, the High
Court has not indicated any reasons.
15. In our view, the Court can exercise the discretion for not taking
coercive steps till the matter is pending but the direction not to file
the charge sheet in reference of judgment in the case of Pradnya
9
Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) is wholly unjust as the facts of the
judgment of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) are completely on
different footing wherein this Court has explained the scope of
jurisdiction of the High Court while entertaining the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court has tried to make a
distinction from the fact that the FIR can be challenged under Article
226 in a writ petition but after taking cognizance of the case, the said
jurisdiction cannot be invoked though the recourse is permissible
under Section 482 of CrPC or 528 of BNSS. The said distinction has
been luculently explained thereof, particularly in paragraphs 8, 9, 10
and 11, which are reproduced as under :
“8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed
by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, it is
evident that the same sought to invoke the twin
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and
Section 528 of the BNSS for having the FIR quashed. It is
true that the police report (charge-sheet) had been filed
on 14th May, 2025 upon completion of investigation of
the FIR, but whether or not cognizance had been taken
by the jurisdictional magistrate is not too clear from the
impugned order extracted above. So long cognisance of
the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the
FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226;
however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance
intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not
available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS
was available to be exercised to quash not only the
FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance,
provided the same is placed on record along with the
requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case
10
for such quashing is set up. Significantly, it was reasoned
by us in Neeta Singh (supra) that a judicial order not
being amenable to challenge before a high court under
Article 226 of the Constitution and there being no prayer
either under Article 227 thereof or Section 482, Cr. PC,
the Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ
petition under Article 226 to have been rendered
infructuous.
9. However, in the present case, certainly the Division
Bench could have examined the grievance of the
petitioner for quashing of the FIR together with the
charge-sheet following it, as well as the cognisance taking
order, if any, since its jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS was also invoked and the relief claimed could
have been suitably moulded subject, of course, to the
requisite satisfaction of the court that an order of
quashing is warranted on facts and in the circumstances.
We have no hesitation to hold that the Division Bench did
have the jurisdiction to pass such an order as per the
“Sitting List”.
10. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court misread Neeta Singh
(supra), inadvertently omitted to notice the factual
dissimilarity as indicated above and consequently,
misapplied the ratio of such decision to spurn the
challenge laid by the petitioner resulting in a failure of
justice.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned stands
set aside. The special leave petition is disposed of at the
admission stage, even without notice to the respondents,
by ordering a remand.”
16. However, from the reading of judgment of Pradnya Pranjal
Kulkarni (supra) , we do not find any reason to direct stay on filing
of the chargesheet under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Therefore, such
direction deserves to be set aside, and the Investigating Officer is
directed to complete the investigation and file its report under section
11
193(3) of the BNSS in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2025 dated
20.12.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of
BNS at Police Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
17. Considering the fact that various FIR have been registered and
the land belonging to society has been sold without the permission
of the society frustrating the object and purpose of society, we feel it
appropriate that in light of the judgment in the case of Pratibha
5
Manchanda & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. to appoint an
SIT for unimpaired and unobstructed investigation and to save the
land of society from the clutches of those who are acting contrary to
the object and purpose of society for their own benefit. This Court in
Pratibha Manchanda (supra) has observed thus:
“29. Land scams in India have been a persistent issue,
involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related
to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions.
Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds,
or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an
encumbrance-free status. Organised criminal networks
often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting
vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to
intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their
properties. These land scams not only result in financial
losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt
development projects, erode public trust, and hinder
socio-economic progress.
5
(2023) 8 SCC 181
12
30. While we do not wish to comment further on this
issue, we believe it is necessary to foil any trace of
organised crime perpetrated by land mafia, through an
unimpaired and unobstructed investigation.
35. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we
expand the scope of inquiry in these proceedings and
direct the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram to
constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be headed
by an officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of
Police along with two Inspectors as its members. The SIT
shall take over the investigation forthwith. The SIT shall
have the liberty to subject Respondent 2, the vendee(s),
the Sub-Registrar/officials, or other suspects to custodial
interrogation to arrive at a definite conclusion, strictly in
accordance with law.”
18. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct under the
supervision of Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh an SIT to be
constituted wherein the Registrar of Societies shall be made one of
its members who can disclose the lands belonging to the society
concerned and thereafter it should be found out that how the lands
belonging to the society have been alienated or transferred to any
third party without the permission of the society. The fact-finding
enquiry be conducted with respect to the lands already sold by any
person other than the original office bearers of the society and the
report be handed over to the Police concerned within a period of three
months on the basis of which cognizance be taken by the concerned
Police Station, if the act of the persons involving is found to be
fraudulent involving mens rea committing offence. Till the SIT
13
submits its report and the investigation is completed by the Police no
coercive action shall be taken against respondent No. 2, but it is
directed that all the accused persons shall cooperate in SIT as well
as in investigation. It is made clear that the SIT shall deal with all
the people at par uninfluenced by unknown force and to maintain
the rule of law.
19. Before parting, it is necessary to observe that Spiritual
Regeneration Movement Foundation of India was registered as a
society for the development of the society at large. After the death of
its founder, it was not intended by him that the friction within groups
shall lead to fights and the property which was quite valuable, shall
be sold for their own interest contrary to the purpose and object. It
was also not intended by him that despite pendency of litigation on
civil and criminal side, the office bearers of the society shall not have
any fear and will continuously involve in selling the property. In our
view, the SIT shall look into all aspects and take a holistic view and
submit its report, thereby further action of forgery and cheating, if
any, be stopped. It is needless to observe that the SIT is at liberty to
give an opportunity to the stakeholders prior to submitting the
report. The said report be made available to the High Court for its
14
decision in the pending matter after asking the objection and
affording an opportunity to the parties. We are not embarking upon
the merits of the case since the present appeal is arising out of an
interim order.
20. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of
accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
….…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
….…….…………….…………J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 12, 2026.
15