Achal Kumar Jindal vs State Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 27.02.2026
Judgment delivered on: 28.02.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1209/2026 & CRL.M.A.
5413/2026

ACHAL KUMAR JINDAL .....Petitioner

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

+ CRL.M.C. 925/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3653/2026 & CRL.M.A.
3654/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3655/2026

ACHAL KUMAR JINDAL .....Petitioner

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pramod
Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Apoorv
Agarwal, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Manav Goyal,
Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Mr. Sanchit Agarwal,
Ms. Amrita Sony, Ms. Manya Jaiswal,
Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Mr. Vignesh, Mr. Satyam
Sharma, Mr. Priyanshu Raj, Ms. Aparna Iyer,
Mr. Gaurav Sarkar, Ms. Priya Singh, Ms. Khushi
Arora and Mr. Rupraj Banerjee, Advocates.


For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akhand
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 1 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

Pratap Singh, Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Harshita
Sukhija, Ms. Rishika Agrawal and Ms. Priya
Tyagi, Advocates.
Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State.

Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidharth
Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr.
Om Batra, Mr. Vinayak Thakur, Advocates for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT


CRL.M.A.1209/2026 (stay) & CRL.M.A.5413/2026 (seeking interim
protection) in CRL.M.C. 321/2026 AND CRL.M.C. 925/2026 (seeking
recall of Non-Bailable Warrants)

1. Petitioner Achal Kumar Jindal, who seeks quashing of FIR
No.0142/2025 registered at P.S. EOW for commission of offences under
Sections 420/409/120B IPC, has filed the abovesaid two applications in
CRL.M.C. 321/2026 whereby he seeks stay of on-going investigation in the
abovesaid FIR and also interim protection from arrest. It would be
worthwhile to mention that application seeking interim protection has been
moved after the issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against him by
the court concerned.
2. Additionally, feeling aggrieved by such issuance of NBWs , he has
also filed a substantive petition i.e. Crl.M.C.925/2026 and seeks recalling of
such warrants.
3. The limited scope of consideration, at the moment, is whether the
petitioner has been able to make out any case, warranting stay of
investigation in the abovesaid FIR and whether he is entitled to any interim
protection and recalling of NBWs .
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 2 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

4. It will be appropriate to narrate, in brief, the allegations made in FIR
in question which was registered on 24.10.2025.
5. The complainants are Mr. Suresh Agarwala and his wife Ms. Kanta
Agarwala (respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively), who are senior citizens.
They have levelled allegations of misappropriation and siphoning off funds
belonging to Exclusive Capital Limited (ECL) in which they hold 2,34,640
equity shares which aggregates to 10% of its issued share capital. In
addition, they also claim to possess Compulsory Convertible Preference
Shares (CCPS) worth Rs.175 crores, which they had obtained through
Evaans Holdings Private Ltd .
6. ECL is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and all the three
accused, as named in the FIR, are having its control. Sh. S.P. Bagla is its
Managing Director, Sh. Achal Jindal (applicant herein) is reportedly its
Executive Director and Authorized Signatory whereas Sh. K.A. Johnson is
Chief Finance Officer (CFO) of ECL and according to complainants, there
are various illegal acts and omissions committed by all of them which has
resulted in deprecation of investment made by them in ECL.
7. Mr. S.P. Bagla is known to complainants as their daughter is married
to his nephew but taking undue advantage of family relations, he made false
representations and cheated them of their hard-earned money. As per
averments, there is systematic diversion of substantial funds, which has
resulted in loss of ECL business and its shareholders value. Various such
instances have been highlighted in the FIR and it has been alleged that by
such illegal activities and siphoning off, the accused persons, themselves,
have become the ultimate beneficiaries. They even created false documents
with intent to cause damage to the creditors and shareholders.
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 3 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

8. FIR also mentions that complainants had, earlier, filed a Company
Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) ,
inter alia, alleging mismanagement and oppressio n of ECL's operations by
the accused and diverting funds from ECL's corpus and Observer, a Former
Judge of this Court has already been appointed to inspect the financial
accounts and documents of ECL. Such appointment was affirmed by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, as is evident from order dated 02.12.2024 and
even the Observer, upon inspecting the limited financial accounts and
documents made available by the accused, confirmed about such unlawful
transactions to siphon off the funds of ECL. Thus, according to
complainants, the allegations made in the Complaint have been,
independently, verified by Observer . Such FIR also talks about one
previously registered FIR i.e. FIR No.89/2024 by the same complainants. It
is, thus, claimed that action be taken against accused who have committed
offences under Section 415/408/463/466/474/471 read with Section 120-B
IPC.
9. Two accused i.e. Mr. S.P. Bagla and Sh. K.A. Johnson haver already
been arrested and are, already, in Judicial Custody.
10. The present petitions are by the third accused i.e. applicant herein.
11. Since, as per investigating agency, he did not respond to the repeated
notices, it obtained NBWs against him and he continues to evade arrest.
12. Let me now take note of the arguments advanced by both the sides.
13. Sh. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the registration of FIR is gross abuse of the process of law and
is actuated by mala fide . His broad contentions are as under: -
(i) The registration of FIR is barred and proscribed as there was already one
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 4 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

FIR prior in time i.e. FIR No.89/2024 and, therefore, with respect to the
same transaction and allegations, the second FIR could not have been
registered. Referring to Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another: (2013) 6 SCC 348, it is argued that after filing
charge-sheet on the basis of first FIR, if the Investigating Agency comes
into possession of further evidence or material, there is no requirement of
registering a fresh FIR and instead, further investigation, with the leave of
the Court, can always be carried out and further report, in terms of Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. can be forwarded but there is no requirement of lodging a
second FIR as there cannot be fresh investigation on receipt of every
subsequent information in respect of the same offence or incident or
occurrence. Moreover, the FIR in question was registered on 24.10.2025
and it was for the alleged acts committed between 01.09.2022 to
30.06.2024, which fact also indicates that such second FIR was driven by
malice as first FIR had already been lodged on 11.07.2024.
(ii) The dispute is, essentially, between the shareholders of ECL and its
Management and is civil in nature. It has been engineered by complainants
with intent to extort, harass and to gain leverage in the alleged on-going
oppression-and-mismanagement and allied proceedings and thus, a matter
of civil nature has been given a colour of criminality.
(iii) No specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and, therefore,
also the registration of FIR is bad in law. Moreover, Director of a Company
cannot be fastened with any criminality, without arraigning the concerned
Company as an accused.
(iv) The registration of FIR for commission of offences under Section
420/409 IPC is not permissible as both the abovesaid penal sections are
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 5 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

mutually inconsistent and cannot co-exist.
(v) The crucial ingredients of both the abovesaid penal sections are, even
otherwise, conspicuously missing. It is contended that in the case in hand,
no offence stands revealed as there is no allegation that any amount had
been received by the applicant and, therefore, there is no question of his
committing either any act of misappropriation or of cheating.
(vi) The clever intent of the complainants is to, somehow, take complete
control of ECL and FIR has been got filed after exhausting all civil
remedies. There is no question of any depreciation in the value of share of
ECL and even in relation to CCPS, if anyone can be said to be aggrieved, it
would be M/s Teesta Retail Pvt. Ltd. But there is complaint from them.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that entire consideration
amount of Rs.175 crores had, actually, been paid by complainants to M/s
Teesta Retail Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, even CCPS, redeemable after 20 years,
have been procured, knowing fully well that these could not have been
purchased.
14. While stressing that a civil matter has been given criminal colour, the
details of previous matters have been stated.
15. Sh. Jethmalani submits that the complainants had, earlier, filed a
Company Petition under Sections 241/242/244 of Companies Act, 2013,
alleging oppression-and-mismanagement in ECL and therein also, similar
averments had been made. In such petition, filed way back on 28.02.2024,
they had, inter alia, sought relief of removal of all the three Directors of
ECL. Such petition was allowed by learned National Company Law
Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLT) and vide order dated 15.05.2024,
NCLT directed appointment of Administrator to manage the functions and
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 6 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

affairs of the above company. A former Judge of this Court was directed to
be appointed as Administrator , with direction to take over all the functions
of the Board. Said order was challenged by the applicant as well as his co-
accused Mr. Satya Prakash Bagla and National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), initially, directed status-quo to be
maintained but, later, directed such former Judge of this Court to act as an
Observer .
16. Such appeal is pending adjudication before NCLAT.

17. In the interregnum, Evaan Holdings Private Limited, from whom the
complainants, as alleged, had obtained CCPS, filed a writ petition before
this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) 9877/2024 in which also the
similar allegations, as presented by the complainants before the learned
NCLT, had been made. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed an
interim order on 23.10.2024 and directed „ suspension of the Board of
Directors ‟ with immediate effect and directed for constitution of „ Interim
Committee of Administrators ‟. Such order was challenged by Mr. S.P.
Bagla by filing a Letters Patent Appeal and the learned Division Bench of
this Court, vide order dated 12.02.2025, dismissed such LPA which resulted
in filing of a petition i.e. SLP 453/2025 in Supreme Court and when such
SLP was taken up by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while issuing notice,
several directions were passed, which are as under: -
“(i) There shall be stay of operation of the directions issued in the
order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.(C) No. 9877/2024, which supersedes the Board of Directors
of Exclusive Capital Limited and appoints an Interim Committee of
Administrators. For the time being and till the date of this order,
the payments to be made to the ICA, as per the said order, shall be
borne by the writ petitioner.
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 7 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

(ii) The orders passed by the NCLAT in relation to the appointment
of the Observer, including the directions and powers given to such
Observer, shall, however, continue to operate.
(iii) Till the next date of hearing in the present special leave
petition, we find it appropriate to direct that Exclusive Capital
Limited shall continue with its day-to-day business activities.
However, it shall not enter into any financial transaction exceeding
₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) without prior notice to the
Observer. If the Observerdeems it appropriate, he may bring the
details of such transaction to the notice of the NCLT, where
proceedings under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, are
pending. The NCLT may, thereupon, pass appropriate orders.
(iv) The proceedings before the RBI, pursuant to its show-cause
notice and in view of the liberty granted by this Court, vide order
dated 17.02.2025, shall continue and appropriate orders shall be
passed, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
(v) The observations recorded in the order passed by the learned
single Judge and in the impugned judgment will not influence the
RBI when it takes a decision. The RBI shall also not be influenced
by this order, granting stay. It shall take an independent decision
on the merits of the matter and proceed in accordance with law.
(vi) Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner and the shareholders,
who have moved the NCLT, to move an application before the
NCLT/NCLAT seeking appropriate directions. If any such
application is filed, the same will be considered and decided in
accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned
judgment, including the order of the learned single Judge and the
present order, granting stay.
(vii) The proceedings before the NCLT/NCLAT may continue. It
will be equally open to the petitioner before us, who is the
respondent before the NCLT and the petitioner before the NCLAT,
to contest/pursue the proceedings.
18. It is, thus, submitted that NCLAT is already seized of the entire
matter and the matter being civil in nature, the registration of FIR is nothing
but gross abuse of law. Relying on Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. and
Others vs. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy and Others : (1997) 5 SCC 446, it has
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 8 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

been argued that when affairs of the Company are already under
investigation and the statutory remedies are adequately provided in
Companies Act , there is no requirement of any further interference, by
getting an FIR registered on identical facts.
19. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel also contends that though
comprehensive arguments shall be advanced in the main substantive
petition whereby they seek quashing of FIR, the abovesaid aspects are
sufficient to stay the on-going investigation and to grant interim protection
to the petitioner and to recall NBWs . He submits that there is no legal
compulsion that any such accused has to, necessarily, file an application
seeking anticipatory bail and in this regard, he, strongly, relies upon
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra:(2021)
19 SCC 401 and while referring to para 16 of said judgment, he contends
that interim relief in a quashing petition would be permissible when there
are allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into
a criminal dispute with a view to pressurize the accused and interference
would also be legitimate when the complaint itself, on the face of it, is
barred by law. Relying on A rnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others : (2021) 2 SCC 427, it has been argued that
whenever any such petition seeking quashing of FIR is filed, it is to be
considered whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been
made out or not and High Court should not foreclose itself from exercise of
power when a citizen has been, arbitrarily, deprived of his personal liberty
in an excess of state power. It is also contended that though ECL is NBFC
but there is no involvement of any public funds and moreover,
complainants are not actual victims and, therefore, the registration of FIR is
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 9 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

bad in law.
20. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel has addressed arguments
in Crl.M.C.925/2026 and while adopting the abovesaid submissions, he
emphasizes that coercive process cannot be issued as a „ pressure tactic ‟ in
disregard of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of
India. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has not followed the spirit
mandated and specified under Section 75 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the warrants could not have been issued without
coming to specific conclusion, accompanied by reasons that such person,
accused of a non-bailable offence, was evading arrest. It is stated that
accused was already before this Court and while disregarding said fact,
impugned order does not record any satisfaction that the petitioner is
deliberately evading process of law and, therefore, the order is cryptic,
mechanical and non-speaking. Relying upon Arun Kumar Parihar vs. State
(Govt. NCTD) : 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2767 and Sesa Goa Ltd. and Others
vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (and connected petition) : 2008 SCC
OnLine Bom 1376, it is argued if NBWs are found issued in a mechanical
manner, these ought to be recalled. Referring to Manish Kumar Munda vs.
State of NCT of Delhi and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6740, it is
argued that to attract Section 406 IPC, it has to be shown that the beneficial
interest in the property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have
been committed, continues to vest in the person by whom the entrustment
was made i.e. in same person and not the accused and status of the
complainant, who is, virtually, outsider, cannot be equated with actually
aggrieved person. Mr. Mathur also relies upon Raghuvansh Dewanchand
Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 9 SCC 791.
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 10 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

21. All such contentions have been refuted.
22. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent
No.1/State and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (complainant) contend that there is no merit either
in the main substantive petition which seeks quashing of the FIR or in the
applications under disposal and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief. According to them, the petitioner and his co-accused have
misappropriated and siphoned off the funds belonging to ECL and the fraud
in question is a serious economic fraud, having enormous ramification and
things would become clearer only when State gets an opportunity to have
his custodial interrogation.
23. It is submitted that petitioner and his co-accused, in a very systematic
and calculated manner, siphoned off the funds thereby, benefiting
themselves. The loans, at reduced rates, were granted to the entities which
were owned and controlled by them only and were disbursed without any
corresponding security or interest. Luxury cars have been purchased at
inflated prices from such entities and in relation to default in repayment by
others, there is deliberate and conscious inaction which indicates their mala
fide intention. It is argued that ECL had received Rs. 315 Crores upon
issuance of Optionally Convertible Debentures (OCD) which were
subsequently converted to CCPS and the proceeds thereof were to be
utilized to meet ECL‟s working capital requirement but these were diverted
and misappropriated. Highlighting that ECL is NBFC, the alleged acts of
misappropriation and siphoning off become much more alarming.
24. Sh. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for State submits that FIR,
quite clearly, discloses all the ingredients to make out offences mentioned
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 11 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

therein and, there is no attempt to convert a civil dispute into criminal. It is
also, vehemently, contended that despite due notice and the undertaking
given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court, the
petitioner has failed to participate in investigation and is absconding and it
was in the abovesaid backdrop only that non-bailable warrants were issued
against him. It is argued that when the petitioner had an efficacious remedy
by filing appropriate application seeking anticipatory bail, the reliefs sought
in the present petitions are not permissible, particularly, when no
exceptional circumstance has been disclosed and his two accused are
already in custody.
25.
I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions and
perused the precedents cited at the Bar.
26. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not filed any separate
substantive petition seeking anticipatory bail.
27. Various orders passed by learned Predecessor Bench would indicate
that objection was raised by the respondents on earlier occasions and it was
argued that when such remedy is available, the stay on arrest cannot be
sought by way invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023). Fact, however,
remains that such issue was not decided by the learned predecessor Bench
and it continued to hear arguments.
28. When Crl.M.C. No.321/2026 was taken up by learned Predecessor
Bench on 16.01.2026, the issue involved herein was referred in the order so
that parties can come prepared for advancing arguments. The issue was
when there is a provision of seeking relief of anticipatory bail, whether stay
on arrest can be sought by invoking inherent powers under Section 482
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 12 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

Cr.P.C. The matter was thereafter taken up on 19.01.2026 but in view of
Board position, the arguments could not be heard and when the matter was
taken up on 03.02.2026, the learned Predecessor Bench was informed that
order dated 15.01.2026 had been challenged by the petitioner by way of
Special Leave Petition and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court did not find any
reason to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners
informed the Predecessor Bench that, in the meanwhile, EOW had already
obtained non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and the petitioner,
herein, had also filed a separate petition challenging issuance of such
warrants and keeping in mind the fact that the question pertained to liberty
of a person, the matter was directed to be listed next day. On 04.02.2026,
though, the arguments could be heard in part only, the learned Predecessor
Bench observed that in view of submissions advanced so far, the petitioner
was at liberty to apply for anticipatory bail, irrespective of the pendency of
these petitions. The matters were thereafter taken up by learned
predecessor Bench on 05.02.2026, 06.02.2026, 10.02.2026 and 17.02.2026
and thereafter these were directed to be listed on 02.03.2026 for further
arguments. However, in the interregnum, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved
by the fact that interim relief was neither granted nor declined, knocked the
doors of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and filed Special Leave Petition
challenging order dated 17.02.2026 which order also reiterated that the
petitioner had been, repeatedly, granted liberty to file anticipatory bail.
29. Admittedly, since there was no substantial order, either way, when
such Special Leave Petition i.e. SLP Crl.No.3420-3421/2026 was taken up
by Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it disposed of the same, observing:-
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 13 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

“We are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions filed
against an adjournment order.
It is for the petitioner, Achal Kumar Jindal, to approach the learned
Judge or the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi in the
event his case is not being taken up, despite the urgency therein being
recorded in an earlier order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

30. On the basis of the urgent mentioning made before Hon‟ble the Chief
Justice of this Court, the petitions were transferred to this Court on
26.02.2026.
31. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that these petitions were heard at
length on 26.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 in relation to the abovesaid
applications.
32. Right here, it also needs to be mentioned that when Crl.M.C.
No.321/2026 was taken up by learned Predecessor Bench on 15.01.2026,
learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, on instructions, assured that the
petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed in writing by
the IO. Fact remains that despite requisite written intimation in this regard,
the petitioner has not come forward and has not joined the investigation.
33. Admittedly, prior to 15.01.2026, two notices were issued to him
under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
2023 (corresponding Section 41-A Cr.P.C.) but the petitioner did not
respond and continued to remain inaccessible. Even after abovesaid
undertaking and assurance given on 15.01.2026, when a notice for
appearance was issued to him on 17.01.2026, as per prosecution, despite
receipt of notice and abovesaid assurance and undertaking, he failed to join
investigation and it is in the abovesaid backdrop that the State was left with
no option but to obtain coercive process against him and in view of the
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 14 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

above peculiar backdrop, no fault can be found in the issuance of non-
bailable warrants .
34. Since the interim relief is being sought in a petition which seeks
quashing of FIR, it will be worthwhile to make reference to Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra:(2021) 19 SCC 401,
wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms, observed
that save in exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice, the Court should not
interfere at the stage of investigation, while also holding that criminal
proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stage. It observed that Police
must be permitted to complete investigation, and interference might be
permissible where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind was
disclosed in the FIR. It was also observed that any interim order staying
investigation or grant of any further relief should not be passed in a
„ routine, casual or mechanical manner’ for the reason that when
investigation is in progress, the facts are hazy and the entire evidence and
material is not before the Court and, therefore, the Court should refrain
itself from passing interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be
adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail
before the Competent Court . Thus, petitioner is entitled to interim relief
only where he has been able to make out an exceptional case of miscarriage
of justice and is also able to disclose that FIR does not reveal commission
of any offence.
35. It would be useful to refer to Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari vs. State of
Gujarat : (2022) 10 SCC 525, where the principles laid down in Neeharika
Infrastructure have been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while
observing that any such exercise of power is permissible only in the rarest
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 15 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

of rare cases. Para 10 of the abovesaid judgment reads as under:-
“10. What is emphasised by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure
is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief
while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC would be only in
the rarest of rare cases. This Court has also emphasised the right of
the investigating officer to investigate the criminal proceedings. In
our earlier judgment and order, in fact, we abstracted the principles
laid down by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure in para 5 in of
Siddharth case.”

36. As already noted, the learned Predecessor Bench had, though, given
liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to Section 438 Cr.P.C. of
anticipatory bail, fact remains that the issue whether such kind of relief viz
stopping of investigation and issuance of “no-coercive process” till the time
quashing is decided, was left open and was not adjudicated, either way,
albeit , liberty, time and again was granted to petitioner to file application
for anticipatory bail.
37. Neeharika Infrastrcture is loud and clear on the abovesaid aspect and
the conclusions given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para 33 of the
abovesaid judgment specify that except for cases where any non-
interference might result in miscarriage of justice, there should not be any
interjection at the stage of investigation of offences. It also lays down that it
would be permissible for the Court to not permit an investigation to go on
where no cognizable offence was made out, while supplementing that such
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, though very wide but conferment of such
wide powers also requires the Court to be more cautious and casts an
onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. The abovesaid principles were
reiterated in Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari while observing that such exercise
of power would be only in the rarest of rare cases .
38. The situation is, thus, quite clear.
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 16 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

39. As a rule, the Court should not interfere with the on-going
investigation while seized of any such petition which seeks quashing of
FIR. The Court may interject only when the accused is able to disclose that
there is gross abuse of process of law and no cognizable offence stands
revealed.
40. A caveat, right here.
41. In-depth analysis of averments appearing in FIR is not required as the
matter is pending investigation. The FIR is, as often said, not an
encyclopaedia and, therefore, investigation should not be stopped abruptly,
unless there is exceptional compelling reason. Who knows, even after
culmination of investigation, in a given case, police may, eventually, file a
closure report, saying no offence was made out. Thus, at such initial stage
when FIR has been registered very recently i.e. on 24.10.2025, this Court
would merely analyze and evaluate the allegations made in the FIR, without
going into comprehensive and in-depth analysis. It would be in the nature
of surface-level-analysis , just to satisfy itself whether cognizable offences
are made out or not.
42. A perusal of the FIR in question would indicate that there are serious
imputations with respect to irregularities and siphoning off the funds, with
specific instances. Merely because at an earlier occasion, a petition under
Section 241 and 242 read with Section 244 of Companies Act was filed
would not, ipso facto , mean that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are barred
from initiating any criminal action.
43. The ambit and sphere of the abovesaid petition, cannot be equated or
confused with the scope of investigation, which is much wider. Moreover,
it is quite obvious that as per order passed by NCLT, a case of oppression
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 17 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

and mismanagement was, actually, found made out and, therefore, the
Board of Directors of ECL was suspended and there was direction for
appointment of Administrator . The appeal is pending adjudication before
the NCLAT and even as per order dated 12.02.2025 of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, the order passed by NCLAT, in relation to appointment of
the Observer, including the directions and powers given to such Observer,
have been directed to continue to operate, with further condition that ECL
shall though continue with its day-to-day business activities, it shall not
enter into financial transaction exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-, without prior
notice to the Observer.
44. Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel
draw attention to the fact that the Observer did notice violation of the
abovesaid condition which indicates the mala fide intention of the petitioner
whose actions, despite abvoesaid specific directions, remain unabated.
45. Admittedly, earlier also there was an FIR which was registered on
the basis of complaint received from the same complainants. It was
registered by EOW on 11.07.2024 and was given number as FIR No.
89/2024. In the abovesaid complaint, Mr. S P Bagla was, specifically,
named and there were allegations against him of cheating and
misappropriation, which he had committed with the help of other known
and un-known persons. In the abovesaid FIR, there are allegations of
misappropriation of 62.05 crores. A careful surface-level analysis of
averments appearing in both FIRs would divulge that there is complete
misconception in the mind of the petitioner that the allegations in both such
FIRs are common and based on same transaction. First FIR is directed
against Mr. Satya Prakash Bagla in his individual capacity, who was
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 18 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

entrusted with Rs.62.05 crores for purchasing a property in Friends Colony .
Such entrustment was made on his representation that he would develop a
property and sell it for huge profit. Such amount was neither returned nor
title deeds were handed over. Thus, the scope and ambit of the investigation
of first FIR is limited to the abovesaid entrustment of 62.05 crores, which
had been given for a specific purpose i.e. for purchasing property. Whereas,
the allegations in the second FIR are totally different and, clearly, spell out
multiple instances of misappropriation by all the Directors of ECL, who
diverted the money for their personal gains.
46. In Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra), the situation was different as
first FIR was in respect of two encounters killings and the second FIR was
filed for third encounter and it was in the abovesaid peculiar backdrop that
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that filing of second FIR and fresh charge-
sheet was violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of
Constitution of India, since the same related to the alleged offence in
respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the Court had taken
cognizance. Herein, the Court has not taken any cognizance based on first
FIR and, moreover, while quashing second FIR, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court also went on to hold that the charge-sheet filed in pursuance of the
Second FIR be treated as a supplementary charge-sheet in the first FIR. In
view of the aforesaid, no real benefit can be dug out from the abovesaid
judgment. Moreover, as noted, the broad allegations, in the two FIRs
herein, are of different nature and have no nexus and connection, except for
the fact that there is commonality of complainants and one accused.
47. No real benefit can be dug out from Arun Kumar Parihar as in that
case, non-bailable warrants were, primarily, recalled as the status report
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 19 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

submitted by the investigating agency indicated that petitioner had joined
the investigation and was not absconding. The warrants had been issued in
said case, merely, for the reason that according to the investigating agency,
accused had not given requisite desired answers. While holding that
accused was entitled to right to silence to prevent self-incrimination, the
NBWs were recalled. Herein, the situation is not akin as petitioner has not
even bothered to join investigation, despite giving assurance before this
Court. In Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra ,
(2012) 9 SCC 791, on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant, the
concerned accused was found absent on the date of hearing and,
therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Despite
cancellation of such non-bailable warrants on a subsequent date by the
same court, the accused was arrested as he could not produce any proof
regarding cancellation of such warrants. It was in the aforesaid premise that
certain directions were issued with respect to issuance of non-bailable
warrants . No such situation exists herein.
48. Thus, in view of my foregoing discussion and after giving thoughtful
consideration to the rival contentions and on careful perusal of the
precedents relied upon by the respective sides, it becomes obvious that the
scope of two FIRs is totally diverse and different and, therefore, merely
because there is already an FIR would not mean that the registration of
second FIR was not permissible or that its registration was actuated by any
malice. The contents of second FIR i.e. FIR No. 0142/2025 reveal, prima
facie , commission of offences. Merely, because a company petition was
earlier filed and M/s Evaans Holding Pvt. Ltd. had also filed a writ petition,
would not carry any significance as no parallel can be drawn between those
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 20 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45

proceedings and ongoing investigation in the present FIR. Such
investigation would be much more broader and there does not seem to be
any prohibition in taking recourse to initiation of criminal action.
49. Concept of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence and anyone
can set criminal machinery in motion whereas in the case in hand, the
complainants are not outsiders or rank-outsiders. They rather have a stake
in the Company, having 10% of the shareholding. Being Directors, they
also, clearly, enjoy dominion over the funds of ECL and, therefore,
Sections 406 and 420 are, manifestly, attracted. Question whether these
Sections can co-exist or not, is better left for learned Trial Court for due
consideration when charges are required to be ascertained. Moreover, fact
remains that charges, in alternate, can, also, be framed.
50. Merely because police custody of one co-accused Sh. S.P. Bagla was
declined, would not earn any automatic reprieve for the petitioner herein
who has declined to join investigation, despite specific undertaking.
51. Consequently, both the aforesaid applications i.e. Crl. M.A. No.
1209/2026 and Crl. M.A. No. 5413/2026 in Crl. M.C. No. 321/2026 stand
dismissed.
52. Crl. M.C. No. 925/2026 also stands dismissed.
53. Crl. M.C. No. 321/2026 be listed on 27.04.2026.
54. Both the sides shall file brief synopsis, after exchanging the same
between them in advance.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
st/sw/dr/pb
Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 321/2026 & Page 21 of 21
CRL.M.C. 925/2026

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:28.02.2026
16:51:45