FIR Cannot Be Quashed Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction if Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence

The petitioners, comprising Eraaya Lifespaces Ltd., its directors, Company Secretary, and CFO, sought the quashing of an investigational proceeding (GR Case No. 3134 of 2025) involving alleged violations of Sections 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 49, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The FIR, lodged at Berhampore Police Station, was based on a complaint by a shareholder (OP No. 2) alleging that the petitioners conspired with one Sunil Agarwal (Accused No. 1) to file a petition before the NCLT, New Delhi, using forged Special Power of Attorney (SPA) documents to secure a status quo order.

The complainant alleged that confidential emails and shareholder data were leaked by company officials to facilitate this forgery and deceive investors.

The petitioners moved the High Court, arguing that the FIR disclosed no prima facie case against them, lacked territorial jurisdiction, and was filed with mala fide intent.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.

Principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which dictate that an FIR should not be quashed if it discloses a cognizable offence and that the court should not adjudicate truthfulness at the threshold.

Section 173(1) and Section 156(2) of the BNSS, which allow for the registration of an FIR irrespective of location and prohibit challenges to investigations based on territorial limits.

Satvinder Kaur v. State (GNCT of Delhi) and Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat to establish that territorial jurisdiction is not a bar to investigation.

The court reasoned that the High Court’s role at the quashing stage is not to act as an investigating agency or assess the merits of the evidence.

It observed that the FIR specifically alleged a concerted conspiracy—supported by the leaking of internal emails by the Company Secretary (Petitioner No. 5) and the use of purported forged signatures of a shareholder (Sarad Bagga) who was linked to Petitioner No. 2 in prior SEBI proceedings.

The court found that these allegations were not "absurd or improbable" enough to warrant dismissal under the Bhajan Lal criteria.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the court held that under Section 156(2) of the BNSS, a police officer’s authority to investigate cannot be challenged on territorial grounds once a cognizable offence is disclosed.

The court noted that mala fide intent of the informant is secondary to the material evidence collected during the investigation.

The High Court declined to quash the proceeding, emphasizing that it must not "kill a stillborn child" by stifling investigation at the threshold. The petition (CRR 2895 of 2025) was dismissed, with a direction to the investigating agency to conclude the probe at the earliest.