### Second FIR for systemic fund siphoning permissible despite prior FIR for individual misappropriation and pending insolvency proceedings.

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

Complainants (shareholders) alleged systematic siphoning of ECL funds through illegal transactions and diversion to benami entities

Previously, the Complainants filed a petition before the NCLT for mismanagement, leading to the appointment of an Observer

A prior FIR (No. 89/2024) had also been registered regarding a separate property transaction

Despite providing an undertaking to the High Court on 15.01.2026 to join the investigation, the Petitioner failed to appear before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), prompting the trial court to issue Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs)

The Petitioner sought stay of investigation, interim protection from arrest, and recall of the NBWs

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a stay of investigation or interim protection from arrest under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the alternative remedy of anticipatory bail is available.

2. Whether the registration of a second FIR is barred under the principle that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident or transaction.

3. Whether the dispute is purely civil in nature, thereby rendering the criminal proceedings an abuse of process.

The Court primarily applied the "rarest of rare cases" doctrine for staying investigations as established in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that courts must not scuttle investigations at the initial stage unless no cognizable offence is disclosed

It relied on Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat regarding the restricted exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to grant "no coercive steps" orders

Regarding second FIRs, the court distinguished Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, noting that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to a distinct transaction or separate occurrence

The court also noted Section 75 of the BNSS (corresponding to the Cr.P.C.) regarding the issuance of warrants for evading arrest

The Court found that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed serious economic fraud and misappropriation of funds in an NBFC

It rejected the argument of "sameness" regarding the first FIR, noting that the earlier FIR concerned a specific personal entrustment of Rs. 62.05 crores for a property, whereas the current FIR alleged systematic siphoning of corporate funds involving different actors and methods

The Court observed that civil proceedings before the NCLT do not bar criminal action, especially where the NCLT’s own findings and the Observer's reports corroborated financial irregularities

Significantly, the Court noted the Petitioner’s conduct: he failed to join the investigation despite a specific undertaking given to the Court on 15.01.2026, justifying the issuance of NBWs

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any "exceptional circumstances" or "miscarriage of justice" required under the Neeharika standards to warrant interference with the investigation

The Court held that a prima facie cognizable case exists, the two FIRs relate to diverse transactions, and the Petitioner’s evasion of investigation disentitles him to discretionary relief

The substantive quashing petition (CRL.M.C. 321/2026) remains pending for further hearing on 27.04.2026