Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 676
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 4379 OF 2025)
NDA SECURITIES LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this court assails the order dated 25.02.2025,
passed by the High Court of Delhi, which has allowed a petition
Signature Not Verified
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘CrPC’)
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.13
17:54:37 IST
Reason:
filed by respondent no. 2 (through its Director); thereby directing the
1
release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock
Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter ‘BSE’) as payout for sale of certain shares
in his favor on superdari subject to him furnishing a Guarantee of
the same amount, before the Magistrate Court.
3. The appellant and respondent no. 2 are both companies engaged in
the trade of shares/securities and are registered with the BSE. On
07.08.2015, on a complaint made by the appellant (through its
Managing Director), under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was
registered under Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter ‘IPC’). In this FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the
appellant received a phone call by a person impersonating himself as
their client ‘Brij Mohan Gagrani’, to purchase 1 lakh shares of a
company named ‘Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. After the purchase was
executed, the said Brij Mohan Gagrani was called to confirm the
purchase but he denied making any such call to the appellant for the
abovesaid purchase. Ashish Agarwal, an agent of the appellant
company is said to have connived with the seller of the shares in
question to defraud the appellant. The BSE was thus requested to
stop payment to the seller of the shares.
4. Consequent to the FIR and the investigation it was revealed that
around 72000 shares (worth Rs. 15.90 lakhs) were sold by
2
respondent no. 2. The charge sheet was filed against one Amit Jain,
who is said to have made the alleged phone call. Amit Jain is the
main accused as per the charge sheet, though respondent no.2 is
revealed as the main beneficiary. Further, the charge sheet mentions
that to ascertain the role of respondent no. 2, the main accused (Amit
Jain) will have to be arrested and interrogated. Thus investigation is
still underway. Amit Jain meanwhile is absconding.
5. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed an application before
Magistrate Court for the release of the money withheld by the BSE.
This application was dismissed by an order dated 16.09.2016,
holding that the role of respondent no. 2 is under investigation, and
until investigation is finalized the release of the funds should not be
allowed.
6. Respondent no. 2 then filed a revision petition against the order dated
16.09.2016, which was also dismissed by an order dated 08.12.2016
passed by the Revisional Court. While dismissing the revision
petition, it was observed that the release of the funds will impact the
rights of the appellant. The investigation was however, directed to be
expedited.
7. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, respondent no.
2 filed a Section 482 CrPC petition before the High Court. The High
3
Court allowed this petition by impugned order dated 25.02.2025, and
directed the release of the sale value of the shares in favor of
respondent no. 2. Now the appellant is before us, assailing the above
order.
8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record.
9. While allowing respondent no. 2’s Section 482 petition, the High
Court observed that the role of respondent no. 2 as being party to the
fraud cannot be ascertained as of now. It was held that respondent
no. 2 put his shares on the market genuinely and the sale value of
these shares cannot be denied to him merely because of the fraud
played on the appellant.
10. It is a settled position of law that while exercising the inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, the High Court is not supposed
to conduct a mini trial [ See: Central Bureau of Investigation
v. Aryan Singh & Ors. (2023) 18 SCC 399 & Dharambeer
Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC
392].
11. It is our considered opinion that the High Court has travelled beyond
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, by allowing the
petition filed by respondent. The High Court ought not to have made
any observations regarding the absence of any role played by
4
respondent no. 2 in the whole transaction because investigation is
yet to be completed. The charge sheet itself states that the main
accused (Amit Jain) is absconding and the role of respondent no. 2
can only be ascertained once the main accused is arrested.
Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the release of the
sale value of the concerned shares in favour of respondent no. 2, may
cause an irreparable loss to the appellant and vitiate the entire
investigation.
12. Moreover, in the present case it is pertinent to note that respondent
no. 2 was the main beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction.
As has been stated above, the chargesheet in the present case
mentions that the role of respondent no. 2 cannot be ruled out. The
role of respondent no. 2 has yet to be ascertained and a clear picture
would emerge only after the investigation. It is therefore premature
to give a clear chit to respondent no. 2 and hold that he is entitled to
the sale value of the shares sold by him, especially when the market
value is negligible. When the investigation is still underway, releasing
the sale value of the shares will frustrate the investigation. Both the
Magistrate Court as well as the Revisional Court, have rightly held
that the funds in question cannot be released at this stage. The High
Court should not have disturbed these findings.
5
13. Thus, in our opinion, the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the High
Court deserves to be set aside.
14. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the
case. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial
expeditiously.
15. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated
25.02.2025 is set aside. The sale value of the shares sold by
respondent no. 2 (amounting to Rs. 15.90 lakhs) shall be kept with
the BSE during the pendency of the trial, meanwhile.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
.........………………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
.….....………………………….J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI,
MAY 13, 2025.
6
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 4379 OF 2025)
NDA SECURITIES LTD. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this court assails the order dated 25.02.2025,
passed by the High Court of Delhi, which has allowed a petition
Signature Not Verified
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘CrPC’)
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.13
17:54:37 IST
Reason:
filed by respondent no. 2 (through its Director); thereby directing the
1
release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock
Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter ‘BSE’) as payout for sale of certain shares
in his favor on superdari subject to him furnishing a Guarantee of
the same amount, before the Magistrate Court.
3. The appellant and respondent no. 2 are both companies engaged in
the trade of shares/securities and are registered with the BSE. On
07.08.2015, on a complaint made by the appellant (through its
Managing Director), under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was
registered under Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter ‘IPC’). In this FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the
appellant received a phone call by a person impersonating himself as
their client ‘Brij Mohan Gagrani’, to purchase 1 lakh shares of a
company named ‘Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. After the purchase was
executed, the said Brij Mohan Gagrani was called to confirm the
purchase but he denied making any such call to the appellant for the
abovesaid purchase. Ashish Agarwal, an agent of the appellant
company is said to have connived with the seller of the shares in
question to defraud the appellant. The BSE was thus requested to
stop payment to the seller of the shares.
4. Consequent to the FIR and the investigation it was revealed that
around 72000 shares (worth Rs. 15.90 lakhs) were sold by
2
respondent no. 2. The charge sheet was filed against one Amit Jain,
who is said to have made the alleged phone call. Amit Jain is the
main accused as per the charge sheet, though respondent no.2 is
revealed as the main beneficiary. Further, the charge sheet mentions
that to ascertain the role of respondent no. 2, the main accused (Amit
Jain) will have to be arrested and interrogated. Thus investigation is
still underway. Amit Jain meanwhile is absconding.
5. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed an application before
Magistrate Court for the release of the money withheld by the BSE.
This application was dismissed by an order dated 16.09.2016,
holding that the role of respondent no. 2 is under investigation, and
until investigation is finalized the release of the funds should not be
allowed.
6. Respondent no. 2 then filed a revision petition against the order dated
16.09.2016, which was also dismissed by an order dated 08.12.2016
passed by the Revisional Court. While dismissing the revision
petition, it was observed that the release of the funds will impact the
rights of the appellant. The investigation was however, directed to be
expedited.
7. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, respondent no.
2 filed a Section 482 CrPC petition before the High Court. The High
3
Court allowed this petition by impugned order dated 25.02.2025, and
directed the release of the sale value of the shares in favor of
respondent no. 2. Now the appellant is before us, assailing the above
order.
8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record.
9. While allowing respondent no. 2’s Section 482 petition, the High
Court observed that the role of respondent no. 2 as being party to the
fraud cannot be ascertained as of now. It was held that respondent
no. 2 put his shares on the market genuinely and the sale value of
these shares cannot be denied to him merely because of the fraud
played on the appellant.
10. It is a settled position of law that while exercising the inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, the High Court is not supposed
to conduct a mini trial [ See: Central Bureau of Investigation
v. Aryan Singh & Ors. (2023) 18 SCC 399 & Dharambeer
Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC
392].
11. It is our considered opinion that the High Court has travelled beyond
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, by allowing the
petition filed by respondent. The High Court ought not to have made
any observations regarding the absence of any role played by
4
respondent no. 2 in the whole transaction because investigation is
yet to be completed. The charge sheet itself states that the main
accused (Amit Jain) is absconding and the role of respondent no. 2
can only be ascertained once the main accused is arrested.
Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the release of the
sale value of the concerned shares in favour of respondent no. 2, may
cause an irreparable loss to the appellant and vitiate the entire
investigation.
12. Moreover, in the present case it is pertinent to note that respondent
no. 2 was the main beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction.
As has been stated above, the chargesheet in the present case
mentions that the role of respondent no. 2 cannot be ruled out. The
role of respondent no. 2 has yet to be ascertained and a clear picture
would emerge only after the investigation. It is therefore premature
to give a clear chit to respondent no. 2 and hold that he is entitled to
the sale value of the shares sold by him, especially when the market
value is negligible. When the investigation is still underway, releasing
the sale value of the shares will frustrate the investigation. Both the
Magistrate Court as well as the Revisional Court, have rightly held
that the funds in question cannot be released at this stage. The High
Court should not have disturbed these findings.
5
13. Thus, in our opinion, the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the High
Court deserves to be set aside.
14. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the
case. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial
expeditiously.
15. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated
25.02.2025 is set aside. The sale value of the shares sold by
respondent no. 2 (amounting to Rs. 15.90 lakhs) shall be kept with
the BSE during the pendency of the trial, meanwhile.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
.........………………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
.….....………………………….J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI,
MAY 13, 2025.
6