Monetary Threshold in Police Circulars Does Not Oust Investigative Jurisdiction Over Complex Economic Sanctions or Fraud

The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, and 120-B of the IPC pending before the Designated Court under the OPID Act.

The Informant alleged that the petitioners, impersonating officers from agencies like RAW and PWD, defrauded him of ₹1.17 crore by providing fake work orders and making false promises of high-value contracts.

A previous complaint filed with the Delhi Police was not registered as an FIR; the Delhi Police had opined that the dispute was civil in nature and suggested the parties approach the State Police.

The petitioners challenged the current proceedings on grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that a prior complaint mentioned an amount of ₹90 lac, which is below the ₹1 crore threshold set for the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) by Circular No. 01 of 2019.

1. Whether the EOW lacks pecuniary jurisdiction because the fraud amount was previously stated to be less than ₹1 crore.

2. Whether the dispute is purely civil in nature, thereby rendering criminal prosecution legally untenable.

3. Whether the FIR constitutes a "second FIR" on the same set of allegations, which is barred by law.

Guidelines for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits interference only in the "rarest of rare cases" to prevent abuse of process.

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. regarding the mandatory registration of FIRs for cognizable offences and the limited scope of preliminary inquiries.

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which prohibits multiple FIRs for the same transaction, while distinguishing it based on whether a case was actually registered.

Principle from Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi, holding that the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal action if the elements of cheating and fraud are present.

The Court observed that while EOW Circular No. 01 of 2019 sets a ₹1 crore threshold, pecuniary value is not the sole determinant of jurisdiction; the EOW may investigate complex financial frauds or systemic cheating regardless of the amount if specialized expertise is required.

The Court refused to perform a detailed accounting of the transactions to determine if the threshold was met, noting that the FIR specifically alleged a fraud of ₹1.17 crore.

On the "civil dispute" plea, the Court found that allegations of impersonation (as RAW officers) and the use of forged documents (fake work orders) provided a clear "element of criminality" and mens rea that surpassed mere contractual breach.

Regarding the "second FIR" argument, the Court concluded that since the Delhi Police only conducted a preliminary inquiry and never registered a formal case or filed a final report, the current FIR with the Odisha EOW is legally maintainable and not a "subsequent" report under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

The Court directed the EOW to verify the records and take a definitive decision on its pecuniary jurisdiction within one month; if the EOW determines the amount is below the ₹1 crore threshold and lacks systemic complexity, it must transfer the investigation to the District Police. The CRLMCs were disposed of with the direction that the investigation proceed in accordance with law.