Rahul Chadha Alias Rahul Chadda vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 119 )
CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
RAHUL CHADHA ALIAS RAHUL CHADDA
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tan u j Sharma, Asst. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Durga Dutt Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1.  The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of the impugned Complaint No. COMA-81-2016 dated
25.05.2016, titled “State of Haryana vs. Rahul Chadda”, instituted by the
respondent under Sections 29/31 read with Section 32 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure P-5), as also the consequential summoning
order dated 25.05.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, whereby the petitioner has been summoned
to face proceedings in the aforesaid complaint without the requisite
application of judicial mind and without recording cogent and legally
sustainable reasons warranting issuance of process. The petitioner further
seeks quashing of all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:2:-
out of the aforesaid complaint and pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, qua the petitioner.
1.1.  A further prayer is made for issuance of an ex parte ad-interim
order staying further proceedings in Complaint No. COMA/81/2016,
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, during the
pendency of the present petition, including all further proceedings
pursuant to and in furtherance of the impugned summoning order dated
25.05.2016, so as to preserve the subject matter of the present proceedings
and prevent the petitioner from being subjected to the continued rigours of
criminal process in respect of proceedings whose very legality and
sustainability are under challenge before this Court. Such interim
protection is warranted in the interest of justice and to obviate the
possibility of the proceedings being carried forward to the prejudice of the
petitioner before the present petition receives its final adjudication.
2.  The instant petition arises out of the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioner under Sections 29/31 read with Section 32
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),
on the allegation that M/s. Religare Wellness Limited had failed to
implement the award dated 06.11.2015 passed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, and that the petitioner, being the
Chief Executive Officer of the said company, was liable to be prosecuted
for such alleged non-compliance. The entire prosecution against the
petitioner, however, proceeds essentially on the premise of his designation
as CEO of the company, notwithstanding that the alleged default/non-
compliance is attributed to the corporate entity itself and, significantly,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:3:-
M/s. Religare Wellness Limited has not been arrayed as an accused in the
impugned complaint. The material facts giving rise to the present petition,
which are relevant for determination of the controversy, are set out
hereinbelow in their chronological sequence.
2.1.  The petitioner is a resident of New Delhi and a law-abiding
citizen. He is aggrieved by the impugned Complaint No. COMA-81/2016
dated 25.05.2016, instituted by the Labour Inspector under Sections 29, 31
and 32 of the Act, as also by the consequential summoning order dated
25.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon,
whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in respect of the
alleged offences under the aforesaid provisions. The petitioner is further
aggrieved by the continuation of all consequential proceedings emanating
from the said complaint and is, therefore, constrained to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2.2.  Prior to the controversy giving rise to the present proceedings,
the petitioner joined M/s. Religare Wellness Limited, having its office at
4th Floor, Media House, 275-276, Capt. Gaur Marg, Sriniwas Puri, New
Delhi-110065 (hereinafter referred to as “the Religare Company”), as its
Chief Executive Officer (for short “CEO”) on 02.01.2009. The affairs and
management of the Religare Company were governed and controlled by its
Board of Directors in accordance with the applicable principles of
corporate governance. Subsequently, on 28.03.2013, the petitioner was
appointed as a Whole Time Director of the Religare Company. It is
pertinent to mention that the petitioner subsequently severed his
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:4:-
association with the Religare Company and resigned from the directorship
of the said company with effect from 31.07.2020.
2.3.  Respondent No. 2, namely Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Sajjan
Singh, resident of Village Singra, District Mahendergarh, joined the
Religare Company as a Pharmacist on 27.09.2010. His services were
subsequently terminated by the Religare Company on 19.07.2011.
Aggrieved thereof, respondent No. 2 challenged his termination before the
learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, by way of
Reference No. 151 of 2012, wherein the Religare Company was impleaded
as the concerned employer. The said reference culminated in an award
dated 06.11.2015, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal directed
reinstatement of respondent No. 2 in service with the Religare Company,
along with 40% back wages w.e.f. 19.07.2011.
2.4.  Following the passing of the aforesaid Award, the Religare
Company called upon respondent No. 2 to resume his duties and offered
him reinstatement in terms of the award. Instead of joining pursuant to the
aforesaid offer, respondent No. 2 initiated execution proceedings before
the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon. The
Religare Company, being aggrieved by the Award dated 06.11.2015, also
assailed the same before this Court by way of CWP-13435 of 2016.
2.5.  Respondent No. 2, notwithstanding the offer of reinstatement
extended by the Religare Company, further instituted Execution Petition
No. 121-2016 dated 09.03.2016 against the Religare Company before the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, titled “ Ashok Kumar vs.
Managing Director/Prop. M/s Religare ”. Even in the aforesaid execution
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:5:-
proceedings, the Religare Company reiterated its willingness to reinstate
respondent No. 2. The said offer of reinstatement is duly reflected in the
zimini order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Gurgaon, in Execution Petition No. 121-2016. Despite the
aforesaid offer, respondent No. 2 did not resume his duties and continued
to pursue the execution proceedings.
2.6.  In the interregnum, respondent No. 2 also approached the
Labour Inspector seeking enforcement/execution of the aforesaid award.
Pursuant thereto, the Labour Inspector instituted the impugned Complaint
No. COMA-81/2016 dated 25.05.2016 under Sections 29, 31 and 32 of the
Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. Significantly,
the impugned complaint was instituted against the petitioner in his
individual capacity, essentially on the premise that, being the CEO of the
Religare Company, he was responsible for the alleged non-implementation
of the award by the company and was consequently liable to face
prosecution.
2.7.  On the very same date, i.e. 25.05.2016, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, passed the impugned summoning order
whereby the petitioner was summoned to face proceedings under Sections
29, 31 and 32 of the Act. A perusal of the said order reveals that no cogent
or legally sustainable reasons have been recorded demonstrating due
application of judicial mind to the specific role attributed to the petitioner
or explaining as to how criminal liability could be fastened upon him
merely by virtue of his designation as CEO of the Religare Company.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:6:-
2.8.  Despite the institution of the impugned complaint and passing
of the summoning order in the year 2016, the petitioner had no knowledge
of the said criminal proceedings or of the consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom. The petitioner came to know of the pendency of the
impugned proceedings only upon being served with summons therein on
30.04.2022. It was only upon such service that the petitioner became
aware of the impugned complaint, the summoning order dated 25.05.2016
and the proceedings arising therefrom pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.
2.9.  Upon acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings, the
petitioner obtained the relevant record, including the zimini orders passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, in the impugned
complaint. Being aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of criminal
trial against him, despite there being no legally sustainable foundation for
fastening individual criminal liability upon him, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of the present petition. The impugned
proceedings, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, raise a fundamental
issue as to whether an officer of a corporate entity can be subjected to
criminal prosecution merely by virtue of his designation, particularly when
the alleged non-compliance is attributed to the corporate entity and M/s.
Religare Wellness Limited itself has not been arraigned as an accused. The
continuation of such proceedings, in the circumstances noticed
hereinabove, is therefore liable to be interdicted in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the
ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:7:-
3.  Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the
sustainability of the impugned proceedings, contends that the alleged
offence, even as projected in the complaint, is attributable to M/s. Religare
Wellness Limited, being the corporate entity against which the alleged
non-implementation of the award is levelled. The petitioner has been
sought to be prosecuted merely by virtue of his having held the position of
Chief Executive Officer of the said company and, consequently, an
officer/agent dealing with its affairs. It is argued that, in the absence of the
company itself being arrayed as an accused the company being the
principal offender against whom the foundational allegation is directed the
petitioner cannot, by invoking the doctrine of vicarious liability, be
independently prosecuted in his capacity as an officer or agent of the
corporate entity. According to learned counsel, criminal liability cannot be
fastened upon an individual merely on account of the office held by him,
unless the statute expressly provides for such vicarious liability and the
necessary foundational facts constituting the same are specifically pleaded
and prima facie established. It is, thus, contended that the impugned
complaint and the consequential proceedings, insofar as they relate to the
petitioner, are legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
4.  Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has
opposed the prayer made in the present petition and contended that the
petitioner, being the Chief Executive Officer of M/s. Religare Wellness
Limited, was responsible for the conduct and affairs of the company and,
therefore, cannot evade criminal liability for the alleged non-
implementation of the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. It
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:8:-
is argued that the petitioner, by virtue of his position and control over the
affairs of the company, was under an obligation to ensure compliance with
the award and his failure to do so renders him liable to face prosecution
under the relevant provisions of the Act. Learned counsel, therefore,
submits that the mere fact that the company has not been arrayed as an
accused cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, enure to
the benefit of the petitioner so as to absolve him from the alleged criminal
liability. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2015 INSC 18 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
authoritatively delineated the principles governing the fastening of
criminal liability upon the directors and officers of a company and has
held as under:-
39. When the company is the offendor, vicarious liability of the
Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any
statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada (supra), the Court
noted that if a group of persons that guide the business of the company
have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate
and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
has to be understood. Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory
intendment making it a deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of "alter
ego", was applied only in one direction namely where a group of
persons that guide the business had criminal intent, that is to be imputed
to the body corporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has to be a
specific act attributed to the Director or any other person allegedly in
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:9:-
control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person
was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company.
xxx
4.1.  On the strength of the aforesaid submissions and the legal
propositions advanced, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2
submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit
and substance, be dismissed.
5.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length
and have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced before this Court. With the able assistance of
learned counsel for the parties, I have also meticulously perused the
pleadings, the material placed on record, the impugned complaint and
summoning order, as well as the entire paper-book, in order to examine the
sustainability of the impugned proceedings within the settled parameters
governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5.1. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed upon the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 383 , and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 , to contend that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional circumstances.
6. The contours and parameters governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR or complaint under Section 482
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:10:-
Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) stand firmly delineated through a
catena of authoritative pronouncements. The said jurisdiction, though wide
in amplitude, is circumscribed by well-settled judicial limitations and
cannot be invoked as a substitute for a full-fledged adjudication of disputed
questions of fact. Such questions, particularly those which require
appreciation, evaluation or weighing of evidence, can appropriately be
adjudicated only after the parties have been afforded due opportunity to
adduce their respective evidence before the competent forum.
6.1. The High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is required to make a judicious, just and
equitable assessment within the confines of the statutory parameters and
cannot embark upon an elaborate examination of the truthfulness or
otherwise of the allegations, nor undertake an appraisal of the defence of
the accused, howsoever plausible, compelling or convincing such defence
may appear on the face of the record. At the stage of considering a petition
for quashing, the Court is neither expected nor empowered to conduct a
mini-trial, meticulously scrutinise the evidentiary worth of the material
relied upon by the prosecution, or return findings on disputed questions
which properly fall within the domain of the trial Court.
6.2. Any such exercise would not only transgress the well-
recognised limits of the inherent jurisdiction but would also occasion a
premature adjudication of the merits of the prosecution case, thereby
effectively according finality to the defence or to the alleged infirmities in
the prosecution version even before the prosecution has been afforded an
opportunity to substantiate its allegations by leading evidence in
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:11:-
accordance with law. The inherent jurisdiction, therefore, has to be
exercised with circumspection and in furtherance of the ends of justice,
rather than by undertaking an evidentiary adjudication which is the
legitimate province of the trial Court.
6.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the landmark judgment of
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 , has authoritatively delineated the parameters governing
the exercise of such jurisdiction and laid down as under:-
“107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:12:-
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:13:-
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim
or caprice.”
7.  In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 , a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while reiterating the aforesaid principles, undertook an
elaborate examination of the scope, ambit and permissible limits of the
jurisdiction exercisable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973. It was
authoritatively reiterated that the extraordinary power of quashing is
required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the
rarest of rare cases, though such expression is not to be conflated with or
understood in the same restrictive sense as the standard applicable in cases
involving imposition of the death penalty.
7.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further underscored that, while
examining an FIR or complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the High
Court ought not to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, credibility,
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained therein, nor
undertake an appreciation or evaluation of the material so as to ascertain
the ultimate probability of conviction. At the same time, where, upon a
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:14:-
consideration of the allegations in the FIR/complaint on their face value,
coupled with the parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction
and the judicially evolved principle of self-restraint, the case falls within
the recognised exceptions warranting interference, the High Court would
undoubtedly possess jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. In this
regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, adverted to the principles
enunciated in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State
of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) .
8.  In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position and the
parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, I have given
my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scrutinised
the impugned complaint, the material placed on record and the allegations
attributed to the present petitioner. Upon such consideration, a
fundamental legal infirmity, going to the very root of the maintainability of
the prosecution against the petitioner, becomes manifest.
8.1.  The gravamen of the allegations, as borne out from the
impugned complaint, pertains to the affairs and alleged acts/omissions of
M/s. Religare Wellness Limited. However, the said company itself has not
been arrayed as an accused in the complaint. The petitioner has been
sought to be proceeded against essentially in his alleged capacity as the
Chief Executive Officer of the said company. In the absence of the
company, being the principal corporate entity against which the allegations
are directed, having itself been impleaded and prosecuted as an accused,
the mere designation or office held by the petitioner cannot, in the absence
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:15:-
of a specific statutory foundation and requisite averments constituting the
ingredients of the alleged offence, ipso facto fasten criminal liability upon
him for the acts purportedly attributable to the corporate entity.
8.2.  It is trite that criminal liability is ordinarily personal and
cannot be imposed merely on account of the holding of a particular office
or designation in a company. The principle of vicarious criminal liability is
an exception to the general rule and must, therefore, have its foundation in
the substantive penal provision or in a specific statutory enactment which
expressly creates such liability. The mere assertion that the petitioner was
the CEO of M/s. Religare Wellness Limited, without the company itself
being arraigned as an accused and without the complaint disclosing the
requisite foundational facts so as to attract personal criminal culpability on
the part of the petitioner, cannot, by itself, constitute a legally sustainable
basis for subjecting him to criminal prosecution.
8.3. Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others etc., 2016 INSC 298 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining the liability of a corporate entity and its officers in criminal
proceedings, reiterated the settled principles governing the attribution of
criminal liability to individuals associated with a company. The Hon’ble
Apex Court, while delineating the distinction between the liability of the
corporate entity and that of its directors or officers, has authoritatively held
as under:-
13. At one point of time, an issue had arisen before this Court, whether a
complaint could be held to be maintainable without making the company
a party. The said controversy has been put to rest by a three- Judge
Bench decision in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:16:-
Limited, 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 854: 2012(2) Recent Apex Judgments
(R.A.J.) 562: (2012) 5 SCC 661 wherein it has been held that when the
company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other
categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the
averments in the petition and proof thereof. It has been further held
therein that there cannot be any vicarious liability unless there is a
prosecution against the company.
Xxxxx
8.4. The distinction between the corporate liability of a juristic
entity and the individual criminal culpability of one of its officers assumes
particular significance in the present case. The corporate veil cannot be
mechanically pierced merely by attributing to an officer the acts allegedly
committed by the company, unless the statutory ingredients necessary for
fastening individual liability are specifically pleaded and prima facie
disclosed. A criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed against
an individual merely because of his association with, or position within,
the corporate structure, particularly when the very corporate entity in
whose affairs the alleged acts are rooted has not been made an accused.
8.5. Tested on the aforesaid touchstone, the impugned complaint
does not disclose a sustainable basis for proceeding against the present
petitioner in his individual capacity. The omission to array M/s. Religare
Wellness Limited as an accused is not a mere procedural irregularity which
can be brushed aside as inconsequential; rather, in the factual and legal
setting of the present case, it strikes at the foundational premise of the
prosecution sought to be maintained against the petitioner. The criminal
process cannot be permitted to operate merely on the strength of the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:17:-
petitioner’s designation as CEO, in the absence of the essential statutory
and factual foundation necessary to attribute independent criminal
culpability to him.
8.6. Permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner in
such circumstances would, therefore, serve no legitimate purpose of
criminal justice. Rather, it would subject the petitioner to the rigours and
stigma of a criminal prosecution without the foundational allegations
necessary to sustain such prosecution in law. The inherent jurisdiction of
this Court is precisely intended to prevent such a course where
continuation of the proceedings would result in manifest injustice and
constitute an abuse of the process of law. The criminal process cannot be
permitted to be utilised as a means of enforcing, indirectly or coercively,
what essentially remains a civil liability, particularly when the basic legal
foundation for fastening criminal culpability upon the petitioner is
conspicuously absent.
8.7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and having regard to the
settled parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), this Court is of the considered
view that the continuation of the impugned complaint and the proceedings
emanating therefrom against the present petitioner would amount to
permitting the criminal process to travel beyond its legitimate bounds. The
case, therefore, warrants interference in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse
of the process of law.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-21825-2022 (O&M) -:18:-
8.8. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to succeed and is
hereby allowed . The impugned complaint ( Annexure P-5 ) and impunged
order dated 25.05.20216 ( Annexure P-6 ), along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the present petitioner only.
It is, however, clarified that the present order is confined to the petitioner
and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of any
proceedings, if otherwise maintainable in law, against any other person or
entity.
9.  In view of the final disposal of the captioned matter, all
pending miscellaneous and interconnected applications, if any, are
rendered infructuous and stand disposed of accordingly. No further orders
are warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
01.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document