Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sharmila Anand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 April, 2026
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M)
CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M)
CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28636-2021 (O&M)
CRM-M-32624-2021
2021 (O&M)
CRM-M-32887-2021
2021 (O&M)
Reserved on : 30.01.2026
Pronounced on : 02.04.2026
Uploaded on : 02.04.2026
6
1. CRM-M--28636-2021 (O&M)
P. PARAMASIVAM MAHALINGAM AND ANR. ... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OFHARYANA
HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
2. CRM-M-32624
32624-2021 (O&M)
SHARMILA ANAND ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
3. CRM-M-32887
32887-2021 (O&M)
SANTOSH MAHALINGAM ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate,
Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocate,
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate,
AMIT SHARMA
2026.04.02 14:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M)
CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M)
CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 2
Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocate,
Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Samma Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for
respondent No.1 to 3
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior
S Advocate with
Mr. Hitesh Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate,
Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate,
Ms. Vanshika, Advocate,
Mr. Ayush Ginwar, Advocate and
Mr. Shivik Jain, Advocate for responde
respondent No.4
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. This is common order shall dispose of the aforementioned three petitions, all filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which is pari materia with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksa Sanhita, 2023, in matters arising out of FIR No. No.0175 0175 dated 17.07.2021 registered under Sections 120B, 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC at Police Station DLF Phase III Gurugram.
Gurugram. Prayer in the first tw two petitions hass been made for quashing of FIR whereas in the third petition bearing No. CRM-- M-32887-2021, 2021, prayer has been made for transfer of investigation of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or some other independent agency.
2. The aforementioned aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by the respondent No.4-M/s.
No.4 M/s. PM Fincap Ltd. which is a non-banking king financial company (hereinafter ( to be referred as complainant company),, by alleging that it was previously known as M/s. Tripund Motors AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 3 and General Finance Limited and changed its name to M/s. PM Fincap Ltd in February, 2018. The complainant company is a part of limited group of companies, having its corporate office at Gurugram. It has been alleged in the FIR, that the petitioners, petitioners who were trustees of, and were responsible for day day-to--
day conducting of business including financial transactions of two trusts namely Maharaji Educational Trust (for short "MET") " ") and Santosh Trust (for short "ST"),, had approached the the complainant for securing loan of Rs.35 crores for the purpose of expanding the business of dental and medical colleges operated by both the Trusts.. They induced the complainant to lend the aforementioned amount by representing that they had properties to secure repayment of the loan. A written agreement was executed on 18.03.2015. As per the terms of the agreement, the loan was to be repaid alongwith interest by 30.09.2015 30.09.2015. By y way of security, the petitioners petitioner created second charge over 63.45 acres of agricultural land owned by the Trusts, the first charge being with Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO).
( ). They also created hypothecation on specified bank accounts and undertook that the revenue generated from the income of both the Trusts would be deposited in those accounts by the petitioners and the said amount deposited therein, will be transferred to the bank account of the complainant for repayment of loan. An undertaking was also given by the petitioners that no other bank account would be opened in the name of the Trusts.
3. As per the allegations, allegations the intention of the petitioners at the time of availing of aforementioned loan was dishonest and they intended to criminally AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 4 misappropriate the amount of loan. They concealed the fact that an agreement to sell had already been executed by them in favour of one SGS Constructions and Developers Private Limited (for short "SGS Constructions") in respect of SGS Constructions 21 acres of land which was part of 62.45 acres of land, qua which second charge was created in favour of the complainant. Only an amount of Rs.8,66,00,000/ Rs.8,66,00,000/--
was repaid by the petitioners and they commi committed tted default in payment of the remaining amount alongwith interest accrued thereon. They kept on avoiding payment of the same on one pretext or the other. Some cheques issued by the petitioners in favour of the complainant had been dishonoured during the period from November, 2015 till March, 2016. Another cheque for an amount of Rs.2 crores as given by the petitioners had also been dishonoured in November, 2018.
4. The complainant complainant further alleged that there was litigation between the petitioners and HUDCO, HU who was having first charge over the immoveable properties of the Trusts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court, vide order dated 08.05.2017 held that HUDCO, HUDCO could sell 42.845 acres of land out of 63.45 acres of land owned by the Trusts for recovering loan. A Ass a consequence thereof, the respondent No.4 became first charge-holder charge holder qua the remaining 20.60 20.605 acres of land. However, in a clandestine manner and by suppressing that the complainant had first charge over the said land, the petitioners sold the same to SGS GS Constructions Developers Private Limited in April, 2018 and the money received by the said sale was misappropriate misappropriated by themselves. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the fact that the complainant was having charge over the said land had been concealed.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 5
5. As per the further allegations, the respondent No.4 also came to know that the specific bank accounts over which the petitioners had created first and exclusive charge, had negligible bank balance thereby defeating the security interest of the complainant. Not even this, the petitioners had in a clandestine manner, opened new bank accounts and the revenue received therein w was as diverted from the reach of the complainant in violation of the undertakings given by the petitioners. By further alleging that the conversations with regard to the repayment of the loan amount and the negotiations qua the grant of the same had taken place at the corporate office of the complainant company at Gurugram and it was there that the petitioners had kept on assuring the complainant that they would repay the money, the respondent No.4 prayed for taking action in the matter.
6. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the allegations ons in the FIR do not make out any case for commission of the off offences ences of cheating, forgery or use of forged documents by the petitioners.. The availment of the loan to the tune of Rs.35 Crores by the Trusts was not a new transaction since previously, previously the petitioners etitioners in order to fulfil the objectives of the Trusts, had availed loan to the tune of Rs.15 Crores from M/s. Sindhu Trade Links and it was only subsequently that the Trusts through the petitioner P. Paramsivam Mahalingam, Mahalingam had sought financial assistan assistance from respondent No.4 by creating charge over 272 flats existing in Ghaziabad and 63.45 acres of land existing within different villages of Ghaziabad, UP. It was on account of some unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners that ther theree was AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 6 some default in repayment of the loan. The transaction that took place between the parties had arisen out of a contract and was purely a civil transaction given a criminal colour by the respondent No.4, No.4 to exert pressure upon the petitioners. Moreso, o, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.05.2017 passed in a litigation with HUDCO, had specifically observed that respondent No.4 had remedy of recovery of loan amount. It is argued that when civil remedy for recovery of the loan amount had been available available with the respondent No.4, as such, it is apparent that the criminal proceedings have been initiated in a matter which is essentially of civil nature to abuse the process of the Court and hence the same are not maintainable.
7. It is further argued ed by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the complaint do not show at all that there was any dishonest intention since the very inception on the part of the petitioners to cheat the respondent No.4. The loan transactions had had been going on between them since the year 2009. The loan availed in the year 2009 2009, had been duly repaid. Even the loan amount of Rs.35 crores as availed in the year 2015 had also been repaid to the extent of Rs.8,66,00,000/-.
Rs.8,66,00,000/ . The ingredients for commi commission ssion of offence of cheating are not at all attracted since the allegations of dishonest or inducement since the very beginning are lacking. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of UP and another (2000) 2 SCC 636, Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, Mahmood Ali and others Versus State of UP and others 2023 SCC AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 7 OnLine nLine SC 950, Chandran Ratnaswami Versus K.C. Palanisamy and others 2013 (6) SCC 740, Archana Rana Vs. State of UP (2021) 3 SCC 751, Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2022) 7 SCC 124 and Vesa Holdings Private Limited Vs. State State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even the ingredients for commission of offence under Section 405 405, punishable under Section 406 of IPC are not at all attracted in this case since there is nneither either any allegation that the petitioners were entrusted with any property belonging to the respondent No.4 or they had converted the same to their own use while having dominion over such property. It is argued that FIR under this Section is therefore, liable iable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon State of Gujarat Vs. Jaswant Lal Nathalal (1968) 2 SCR 408 and Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2019) 9 SCC 148.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised another argument to the effect that the allegations in the FIR on the face of record do not make out any case at all for commission of offences of forgery of any valuable security y for the purpose of cheating or use of any forged document punisha punishable ble within the meaning of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and as such, no case for taking cognizance ance under the aforementioned sections and proceeding against the petitioners, has been made out.
10. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners that petitioner Sharmila Anand was not responsible for day day-to-day day conduct of the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 8 business of the Trusts. She had resigned from the Trusts way way-back back in the year 2016/2017. She was not the signatory to the agreement(s) executed between the Trusts and the respondent respondent No.4 and as such no vicarious liability could be fastened upon her for commission of subject offences. To fortify this argument, reliance has been placed upon SK Alagh Vs. State of UP and others (2008) 5 SCC 662 and Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI (2015) (2015) 4 SCC 609.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the short reply filed by way of affidavit and learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 No.4--
complainant while referring to the contents of the reply as filed by this respondent, havee vehemently argued that the petition under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable at all since since there is no exceptional or rrare circumstance seeking intervention thereunder by this Court. It is submitted that after conducting preliminary inquiry and finding that the allegations in the complaint disclosed thee factum of commission of cognizable cognizable offences by the petitioners, recommendation dation for registration of FIR had been made and the same has been registered. The case is at its nascent stage. Two of the petitioners have not even joined investigation and directly approached this Court within a period of 09 days of lodging of the FIR.
FIR A Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been constituted by the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram on 20.07.2021. The petitioners were sent notices to join the preliminary inquiry but they did not come forward. The objections are prematur premature.
e. There is nothing to show that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper manner manner.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 9
12. It is further argued that the criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled at the initial stage. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of cognizable ognizable offences as against the petitioners. This Court cannot embark upon inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. The merits of the allegations also cannot be gone into at this stage. It is, thus,, argued that the Investigating g Agency deserves to be permitted to investigate the allegations in the FIR and no ground for allowing the petitions petitions is made out. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent No.4 upon Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, Jhandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited Versus Mohammad SharafulHaque (2005) 1 SCC 122,, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 958, Kaptan Singh Vs. State of UP (2021) 9 SCC 35 and d Ram Babu Vs. State of MP (2009) 7 SCC 194 194,, State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1 SCC 452 and State of Chhattisgarh and another Vs. Aman Kumar Singh and others (2023) 6 SCC 559,, Kaushik Chatterjee V. State of Haryana and Others (2020) 110 0 SCC 92, Asit Bhattacharjee V. Hanuman Parsad Ojha (2007) 5 SCC 786, Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Government of NCT, Delhi) and another (1999) 8 SCC 728 and KV Rajendra Vs. Superintendent of Police, SBCID, South Zone, Chennai (2013) 2 SCC 480.
13. It is further argued that the allegations prima facie make out a case to show that there existed fraudulent and dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners while executing agreement dated 18.03.2015 in favour of respondent AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 10 No.4 and while availing loan lo to the tune of Rs.35 Crores since a material fact was concealed that qua 21 acres out of 63.45 acres of land which was kept under second charge in favour of respondent No.4, an agreement to sell had already been executed in favour of SGS Constructions. Despite the fact that the obligation arising out of the contract was was of civil nature, still existence of element of cheating is prima facie made out and therefore therefore, it is open for the respondent No.4 who is a party to the contract to prosecute other side ffor or offences alleged. It is, hence, argued that since a case for commission of cognizable offences is made out, as such no ground for quashing of FIR is made out. In support of this contention, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 has placed reliance rel upon Dr. Lakshman V. State of Karnataka (2019) 9 SCC 677.
14. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
15. On considering the contentions as raised by both the sides, the first ground d that this Court is called upon to answer in view of the pleas raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioners is, whether and to what extent extent, would a Court exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., be justified to quash an FIR while the Police embarks on an investigation against a person named as accused therein. At the outset, it would be proper to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan 335 has laid down thee following principles giving the Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 11 categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. Some of these guidelines are mentione mentioned as hereunder :-
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case agains the accused;
against
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non non-cognizable cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2 155(2)) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 12 criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
16. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-
:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cog cognizable nizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rar 'rarest est of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 13 reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the aallegations llegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save inn exceptional cases where non
non-interference
interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary rary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR, Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 14 complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary bbefore efore the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an n onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self - restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and BhajanLal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating stigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
17. In Kaptan Singh's case (supra), it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :-
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 15 "At At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case case, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge charge-sheet sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance.
cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge charge-sheet sheet is filed after conclusion conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 16 material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Patel, in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that questi question on is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on on.. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge charge-sheet sheet is filed along with such material as to, how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material"
18. In Ram Babu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the question to be considered while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing a complaint/FIR is not whether there was AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 17 any truth in the allegations made but the question is whether on the basis of the allegations, a cognizable offence or offences is made out or not?
19. On going through the principles principles of law as laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is apparent that powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of FIR at the initial stages are to be exercised in exceptional and extra-ordinary ordinary circumstances and the High Court at this stage is required to consider only the allegations in the FIR and as to whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not?
20. Now it is to be seen as to whether the allegations in the FIR make out a case for commission of any cognizable offence(s) or not? As per the allegations, the Trusts operated by the petitioners availed loan facility to the tune of Rs.35 Crores from the complainant company as on 18.03.2015 against certain securities. The first security was by way of second charge created over land measuring ring 63.45 acres of land owned by the Trusts. The fact that HUDCO was having first charge over land, land was known to the respondent No.4 and had also been incorporated in the written agreement. However, from the bare reading of the allegations in the FIR, it has come on record, and it has also not been categorically denied by the petitioners that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in some litigation, out of 63.45 acres of land, 42.845 acres of land of the Trusts had been directed to be sold by HUDCO HUDCO and the first charge qua the remaining 20.605 acres of land was given to the respondent No.4 on intervention application moved by the complainant, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 18 the said direction was withdrawn qua the 20.605 acres of land as an agreement to sell was found to be executed in favour of above-mentioned M/s. SGS Constructions in the year 2009 and sale deed was ordered to be registered in its favour.
21. The fact that agreement in favour of SGS Constructions, was executed way back in the year 2010, is not found mentioned in the loan agreement dated 18.03.2015 executed with respondent No.4 and obviously, bviously, the same was concealed by the petitioners while creating second charge in respect of the same property in favour of respondent No.4 w which hich clearly amounts to suppression and misrepresentation of facts, thereby inducing the respondent No.1 to part with a sum of Rs.35 crores which alongwith interest has now been increased to manifold amount. If the allegations in the FIR are to be believe believed d which is a norm that is to be followed at this stage, then the same reveal commission of cognizable offence under Section 420 by the petitioner. So far as the allegations that the petitioners in violation of the undertakings given by them, had opened new new bank accounts to divert the revenue/deposit received from the Trusts to some other sources and apparently to misappropriate them and had not kept any balance in the bank accounts qua which undertaking was given, also show their dishonest intention and thi thiss fact also lends credence to the allegations made by respondent No.4 that petitioners by misrepresentation and deception had opened new accounts with regard to revenue of the Trusts to avoid repayment to the respondent No.4. The intention to deceive the respondent No.4 on the part of the petitioners since the very inception is AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 19 therefore, apparent from the record, thereby showing a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
22. Since the petitioners have been booked for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as well, it is imperative to examine the ingredients of these offences offences. Essential ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 405 i.e. the offence of criminal minal breach of trust are :-
:
(1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that property, or;
(3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation,
(a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or;
(b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
23. Section 467 of the IPC deals with forgery of valuable se security curity etc..
The ingredients for commission of offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 of IPC are :--
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 20
(i) the making of a false document or part of it, and
(ii) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section viz. (a) to cause damag damagee or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) any person or (b) to support any claim or title, or (c) to cause any person to part with property, or (d) to cause any person to enter into any express or implied contract, or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed
24. Section 468 of IPC provides punish punishment ment for offence of forgery committed for the purpose of cheating. For conviction of a person under this Section, it must be proved that the accused forged some document with the intention of using the same for the purpose of cheating.
25. The essential ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC are :
(i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine genuine;
(ii) Knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using that document ument that it is a forged one.
26. It is apparent from the above that to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, entrustment of property is pivotal whereas to constitute offences of forgery or use of forged document, making of a false docume document nt with intention to cause damage or injury is must. In the instant case, however, on AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 21 going through the allegations in the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that there are no allegations of entrustment of any property by the complainant by either of the petitioners.
etitioners. Further, the allegations also do not make out any prima facie case of making of a false document by either of the petitioners with intent to commit offence of forgery or use of any such document as such, at this stage it cannot be stated that the ingredients of aforementioned offenc offences es are attracted in this case though, hough, it may be a question of further investigation. Nonetheless Nonetheless,, since this Court has opined that the allegations prima facie reveal factum of commission of offence of cheating, cheating which ich too is a cognizable offence offence, hence, it cannot be stated that no cognizable offence is made out. It is well well-settled settled proposition of law that if from the allegations in the FIR, the factum of commission of a cognizable offence which only sets in motion tthe he investigating agency to collect all necessary evidence and then to take action in accordance with law, is disclosed, then in such a situation, situation, the investigating officer has no option but to proceed to investigate the case either himself or to depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the the allegations are matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the Investigating Officer is not not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can. Reliance in this regard can be AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 22 placed upon CBI Vs. Tappan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175, wherein, it was held so.
27. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner petitioners has laid much stress on the argument that the properties of the Trusts are existing at Ghaziabad, the cause of action tion if any had accrued there, none none of the peti petitioners tioners is resident of Gurugram and no no offence took place within the jurisdiction of Police St Station, ation, DLF Gurugram but the FIR has been lodged therein only for the benefit of the respondent No.4. It is argued that since the Police Station DLF Gurugram has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, hence the Investigating Officer of this Police Station ion has no power to investigate as well. To buttress his arguments, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2016) 9 SCC 1 and Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2022) (2022) 7 SCC 124.
28. In Manoj Kumar Sharma's case (supra) (supra), the contention raised by the accused was that the concerned Police Station had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter alleging commission of offences under Section 304 304-B B and 498A of IPC because none of the part of the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide referring to the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. observed that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence is committed committed,, or where the offence is committed in one local area area,, the said offence can be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local area. It AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 23 was observed also that at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime. After the investigation is over, over if the officer arrives at a conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he will forward the case to the Magistrate concerned empowered to take cognizance of the matter.
29. In Vijay Kumar Ghai's case (supra) (supra),, the origin of the dispute emanating from an investment investment made by the complainant finally culminated into a MoU based on which the complainant had filed 03 complaints, 02 at Delhi and 01 at Calcutta. The FIR was lodged at Delhi. It was observed that jurisdiction had been created in Delhi. The order passed passed by the High Court of Calcutta thereby declining to quash the FIR was set aside.
30. It is well settled proposition of law that question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases revolves the place of commission of offence, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Chatterjee's case (supra), that the question of territorial territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases revolves around the place of commission of the offence, or place where the consequence of an act, both of which constitute an offence, ensues or the place where the accused or victim was found or the place where the property property in respect of which the offence was committed, was found or the place where the property forming the subject matter of an offence was required to be returned or accounted for etc. In Asit Bhattacharjeet's case (supra) while considering the provisions ooff Sections 178, AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 24 181(4) and 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that commission of even a part of offence within the jurisdiction of the Court/Magistrate concerned, is sufficient for exercising of jurisdiction by the said Court, Magistrate Magistrate in relation to the offence committed. .
31. The case as set up by the respondent No.4 complainant is that since negotiations and conversations qua availing of loan and repayment of the same had taken place in the corporate office of the responde respondent No.4-Company Company which is situated at Gurugram within the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station, hence it has jurisdiction to conduct investigation in the matter. This Court draws reliance upon Satwinder Kaur's case (supra), wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the stage of the investigation, the material collected by an Investigating Officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station officer of a particular police station would have no territorial erritorial jurisdiction. It has to be stated that in view of Section 178(C) of Cr.P.C., when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different areas, the said offence can be be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of the local areas. As per Section 156(2) an embargo is contained that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no power to investigate. In the opinionn of this Court also, the situs itus or part of offence cannot be unilaterally determined without completion of investigation by the Police. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Rajiv Modi Vs. Sanjay 241 wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Jain (2009) 13 SCC 241, AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 25 that from the allegations made in the complaint, if prima facie opinion is taken that the whole or part of the cause of action has arisen in its jurisdiction this Court can certain taken cognizance of the complaint. As such, the arguments so raised cannot be accepted.
32. It is also important to note that the FIR was registered on 17.7.2021. The first petition was filed on 26.07.2021 i.e. within 9 days of registration of FIR by the two petitioners and the investig investigation ation proceedings were ordered to be stayed by passing an order that no coercive step shall be taken against them. Two of the petitioners had not even joined investigation. In (supra),, the Hon'ble Supreme Jhandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited case (supra) Court observed served as under :-
:
11. ...the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power iiss based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stiflee a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete complete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material, of course, no ha hard-and-fast fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 26 quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper per for the High Court to analyz analyzee the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations gations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necess necessary ary that thereshould be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which ch decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 27 are of no consequence andcannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.
s.
33. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited case (supra), the following observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court ::-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. KhwajaNazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18,, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation.
nvestigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first Information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of Haryana v. BhajanLal 1992 Sup quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliab reliability ility or genuineness or otherwise therwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint omplaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra),, this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from-usurping the jurisdiction sdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 28
34. Reliance can also be placed upon Aman Kumar Singh's case (supra),, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that it being the settled principle of law that when an investigation is yet to start, there should be no scrutiny to what extent the allegations in an FIR are probable, reliable or genuine and also that an First Information Report can be registered merely on suspicion. It was also observed that viewed through the prism of gravity of allegations, a First Information Report based on "probability" of a crime have not been committed, would obviously be of a hig higher her degree as compared to a FIR lodged on merely suspicion that a crime has been committed.
35. In State of Maharashtra Versus Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 SCC,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under ::-
"13.
13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it "soft "soft--
pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of Investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution nstitution of India and Section 482 of the Code AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 29 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "CrPC") are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage ooff justice and for correcting somee grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be ex exercised ercised in invoking these powers
36. In view of the ratio of law as laid down in the above cited cases, it is explicit that though this Court has extra-ordinary extra ordinary and inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. However, under these powers, the Court can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it soft soft-pedal pedal the course of justice at a crucial stage of Investigation/proceedings unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those Incharge of investigation. Otherwise, the High Court should ould be loath to interfere at early/premature stage of investigation. Reliance in this context can be placed upon State of Orissa V. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 wherein similar observations were made.
37. Further, so far as the argument that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and hence no criminal proceeding could be initiated, is concerned, it may be stated that the well settled proposition of law is that civil and criminal remedies are not mutually inclusive but are co co-extensive extensive and essentially independent in their content and sequence. Pendency of a civil litigation cannot act as a bar to the investigation of a cognizable offence. Civil AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 30 and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously simultaneously.. Reliance in this context can be placed upon to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Askar Hadi Ali Augusten Imam Vs. Delhi Administration (2009) 5 SCC 528, wherein it was observed that it is trite law that mere institution of a civil proceeding roceeding is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, dy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Simply because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant further further investigation and if necessary, a trial. Reliance in this context can also be placed upon K. Jagdish Vs. Udaya Kumar GS and Another (2020) 14 SCC 552, Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others AIR (1999) SC 1216 and Lee Kun Hee Vs. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 wherein similar observations were made.
38. As per the discussion made above, a prima facie case for presuming that the petitioners had dishonest intent since the very inception of execution of the agreement dated 08.03.2025, hence, despite despite the fact that the transaction between the parties was commercial/civil in nature, it cannot be stated that the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. So far as the argument as raised by the petitioners that only petitioner P. Paramsivam Mahalinga Mahalingam m was signatory to the agreement and the argument that petitioner Sharmila Anand had resigned as a trustee way-back back in the year 2016/2017 and hence no vicarious liability could be AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 31 fastened upon them is concerned, in S.K. Alagh's case (supra), which has been en relied upon by the petitioners, the accused were booked under Section 406 of the IPC. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was held that vicarious liability could not be fastened upon MD, Director or other officers of a company and the persons incharge of the affairs of the company and in control thereof are vicariously liable. In Sunil Bharti Mittal's case (supra), it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a company is accused, its Directors can be roped in only when there is sufficient sufficient incriminating evidence against them coupled with criminal intent or the statutory regime attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability. The petitioners were admittedly trustees of the Trusts at the time of execution of agreement dated 08.03.2015. At tthis his stage, neither the merits of the allegations nor the contention that one or the other of the petitioner were not involved in day-to-day day day conduct of business of the Trusts can cannot not be considered by this Court.
Court. Investigation has to be conducted by tthe he investigating agency also to that extent, as such, on the basis of the plea so raised, it cannot be stated that the FIR has become liable to be quashed.
39. With regard to the prayer made by the petitioner Santosh Mahalingam for transfer of investigation investigation to CBI or some other independent agency, it may be mentioned that the well settled proposition of law is that the investigation can be transferred from State Police to CBI only in rare and exceptional cases, cases where it is necessary to do justice and ins instil til confidence in investigation, where it is necessary for a fair, honest and complete investigation; where investigation by State lacks credibility; where the he State officials and AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 32 authorities are involved and are likely to influence investigation and wher wheree investigation is biased and where the incident may have national and international ramifications ramification or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. Reliance in this context can be made to the observations made in K.V. Rajendran's case (supra).
40. Reliance can also be placed upon Secretary Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, UP Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 521,, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does not disclose a prima facie facie case calling for investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. Reference can also be made to CBI Vs. Rajesh Gandhi; 1997 CRI-LJ 63, it was observed that no one can insist that an offence be LJ 63, investigated by a particular agency. An aggrieved per person son can only claim that the offence be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
41. In State of WB Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic 401 a Constitution Rights (2010) 2 SCC Cr. 401, itution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the extra-ordinary extra ordinary power for sending the matter to CBI must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and inter inter-national national ramifications or AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 33 where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
rights. Reliance can also be placed upon Narmada Bai Vs. rat (2011) 5 SCC 179, wherein it was observed that the accused State of Gujarat persons do not have a say in the appointment of investigating agency and cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the alleged offences committed by them. The petitioner has only raised bald allegations against the investigation agency.
agency Noo police officer has been named named. The allegations do nott show that any su uch exceptional circumstance iss made out that justifies transferr of case to CBI. None of the officers officer or other party against whom allegations are levelled, are being named. The accused cannot cannot have any say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency nor he can insist that an offence be investigated stigated by a particular agency. As As such this Court finds no reason to acceptt the contention raaised by the petitioner Santosh M Mahalingam.
42. As a sequel to the discussion as made above, tthis his Court is of the considered opinion that since the investigation of this case was at its very initial stage when the petitions had been filed and as the allegations levelled in the FIR, prima facie disclose a case for commission of a cognizable offence, ass such no ground for thwarting the investigation and quashing of FIR is made out. In this context, this Court also finds support from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195, wherein it was observed that the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by the judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-28636--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32624--2021 (O&M) CRM-M-32887--2021 (O&M) 34 time of the lodging of the first information report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of the police station in Court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. The he remaining citations of law which have have been relied upon by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and hence no reliance can be placed upon them.
43. Having noticed the facts and circumstances of the case and the le legal gal position as explained above, as well as the parameters in which an FIR can be quashed as expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, this Court finds no compelling ground for quashing of the FIR, at this stage is made out, neither any ground for transferring of the investigation to the CBI is made out. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
44. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
45. A photocopy of this order be placed on record of the connected file(s).
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 02.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.