### Second FIR for Distinct Transactions Disclosing Cognizable Offences Not Barred by Parallel Civil Proceedings

The Petitioner, an Executive Director of Exclusive Capital Limited (ECL), sought to quash FIR No. 0142/2025 (EOW) alleging offences under Sections 420/409/120B IPC.

Complainants (Respondents 2 & 3) alleged systematic siphoning of ECL funds to personal entities.

Similar allegations were previously raised in NCLT proceedings where an Observer confirmed unlawful transactions.

The Petitioner sought stay of investigation, interim protection from arrest, and the recall of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) issued after he failed to join the investigation despite an undertaking given to the High Court.

Whether the court should stay an investigation or grant interim protection from arrest under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) when the accused has the alternative remedy of anticipatory bail.

Whether the registration of a second FIR is barred if a previous FIR exists involving the same parties but different transactions.

Whether a dispute pending before the NCLT/NCLAT precludes the registration of a criminal case on the same facts.

The court primarily applied the principles from *Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra*, which mandates that the power to stay investigation or grant "no-coercive steps" orders should be exercised only in the "rarest of rare cases" to prevent miscarriage of justice.

It relied on *Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat* to reiterate that courts should be cautious not to scuttle legitimate investigations at the threshold.

Regarding the second FIR, the court distinguished *Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI*, noting that a second FIR is permissible if it relates to distinct transactions or occurrences.

The court also noted that criminal and civil proceedings (like NCLT) can co-exist as their scopes differ.

The court found that the FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable economic offences involving the siphoning of funds from an NBFC, which required thorough investigation.

It rejected the argument that the second FIR was barred, observing that the first FIR (No. 89/2024) concerned a specific personal property transaction of Rs. 62.05 crores, whereas the present FIR concerned systemic mismanagement and diversion of corporate funds.

The court emphasized that the Petitioner failed to join the investigation despite a specific undertaking given on 15.01.2026, justifying the issuance of NBWs by the Trial Court.

The court further held that the existence of statutory civil remedies under the Companies Act does not bar criminal prosecution for fraud and misappropriation.

The court held that the Petitioner failed to make out an exceptional case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and noted that he remained at liberty to seek anticipatory bail under the appropriate statutory provisions.

The substantive quashing petition was listed for further hearing on 27.04.2026.