High Courts should not routinely stay nascent criminal investigations or grant no-coercive protection.

The petitioner, a director of M/s. Urban Infra Nirman Private Limited, challenged the FIR registered as Electronics Complex Police Station Case No. 262 of 2026 on 27 July 2026.

The complaint concerned ₹2.17 crore allegedly advanced by the complainant to M/s. Mayapur Commercial Private Limited in 2009, followed by a rollover agreement with Urban Infra Nirman in 2011.

The petitioner submitted that he was not a director when the original transaction occurred and became a director in 2013; the complainant alleged that the criminal conduct continued in 2019.

The petitioner also argued that the FIR was a second FIR and relied on interim protection granted to another person by a coordinate bench.

The investigation was ongoing.

The petitioner sought interference with the FIR and protection from coercive action.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the FIR or grant interim protection while the investigation was at a nascent stage.

2. Whether the petitioner should instead pursue the alternative remedy of applying for pre-arrest bail before the appropriate forum.

Under Article 226, the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings or grant interim protection must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court noted that interim orders staying investigation or directing that no coercive steps be taken should not be passed routinely, particularly where the investigation is in progress and the evidence is not yet before the Court; an accused should ordinarily seek anticipatory bail before the competent court.

The Court also identified an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as an available alternative remedy.

The Court confined its consideration of the complaint to whether it should entertain the writ petition and made no finding on the truth of the allegations, given that the investigation was continuing and at an early stage.

It considered the petitioner’s reliance on the coordinate bench’s interim order but noted that the complaint here alleged conduct continuing into 2019.

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court declined to grant protection or otherwise intervene in the investigation through the writ petition, and pointed to pre-arrest bail as the appropriate alternative remedy.

The dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from taking steps in accordance with law, including applying for pre-arrest bail before the appropriate forum.