Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(Crl) No.-011375 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 41686/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding on trial and subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction to regulate parallel proceedings and grant bail under Article 136 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether this Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction, direct closure of parallel FIRs arising from the same set of facts in a civil dispute, implead an Interim Resolution Professional, and grant bail upon filing of the charge-sheet without taking the accused into custody. |
| Ratio Decidendi | In view of multiple proceedings arising from a civil dispute, the Court held that proceedings not pressed before lower forums should be closed without prejudice and parallel FIRs may be shut under this Court’s jurisdiction. Where a charge-sheet has been filed and allegations are unsubstantiated, there is no reason to remand the accused to custody. Accordingly, petitioners shall be granted bail on conditions determined by the trial court and have the charges read over on the same day. Further, impleadment of the Interim Resolution Professional is permissible. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Exercise of the Supreme Court’s inherent and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of criminal process and to regulate multiplicity of proceedings |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Accused petitioners faced FIR No. 396/2025 at Tajganj (Agra) for alleged cheating over a refund; parallel FIRs were filed under Sections 156(3) and 173(4) CrPC in Delhi and Agra, some stayed or disposed as not pressed; High Court refused quashing; the investigation in the Agra FIR concluded allegations unsubstantiated and a charge-sheet was filed; petitioners sought relief before this Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All trial courts and subordinate courts dealing with criminal proceedings under Article 136 |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and other benches of the Supreme Court in applications for quashing or bail in similar cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court may close parallel FIRs not pressed at lower courts where the underlying dispute is civil.
- Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) can be impleaded in criminal proceedings relating to a corporate insolvency.
- Bail should be granted upon filing of the charge-sheet without taking the accused into custody, on conditions as the trial court sees fit.
- Charges must be read over and bail granted on the same day to expedite the trial process.
- Parties and their representatives must cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the case as per the Supreme Court’s directions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Identification of three parallel FIRs under Sections 156(3) and 173(4) CrPC; two were stayed or withdrawn as not pressed by the complainant.
- Determination that the core dispute was civil; lower courts had either stayed registration or disposed applications.
- Exercise of the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Article 136 to close proceedings not pressed and avoid multiplicity of litigation.
- Recognition that once a charge-sheet is filed and allegations are found unsubstantiated, there is no justification for custody.
- Direction for immediate granting of bail on conditions to be fixed by the trial court, with charges read on the same day.
- Permission to implead the Interim Resolution Professional to represent the corporate entity and summon relevant witnesses.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- The dispute is purely civil; criminal proceedings amount to mala fide harassment.
- Multiple cases on identical facts constitute abuse of the criminal process.
- Seek quashing of the FIR and oppose custodial remand.
3rd Respondent (Corporate Entity / IRP)
- Alleged clear cheating by misdirecting a refund to another account.
- Persistent demands post-payment show collusion to cheat the corporate entity.
- Implementation of the Interim Resolution Professional is necessary for representation.
Respondents 1 & 2 (State & Police)
- Investigation concluded allegations were unsubstantiated.
- Charge-sheet (Final Report No. 144/2025) dated 07.07.2025 filed in CC 396/2025.
Factual Background
The petitioners were accused in FIR No. 396/2025 at Tajganj Police Station, Agra, alleging cheating over a refund of funds credited to another person’s account. Parallel applications under Sections 156(3) and 173(4) CrPC were filed in the Karkardooma Court (Delhi) and before the CJM, Agra; the former was stayed, the latter disposed as not pressed. The High Court declined to quash the Agra FIR, noting mala fide intent. Following an investigation that resulted in a charge-sheet concluding allegations unsubstantiated, the petitioners sought relief before the Supreme Court. This Court closed the unpressed proceedings, allowed impleadment of the Interim Resolution Professional, and directed bail on conditions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 156(3) CrPC: Power to direct the police to register an FIR, invoked in Karkardooma proceedings.
- Section 173(4) CrPC: Power to require a status report on FIR registration, invoked before the CJM, Agra.
- Article 136 of the Constitution: Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction to regulate proceedings, prevent abuse, and grant bail.
Procedural Innovations
- Shutting down parallel FIRs not pressed at lower courts to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
- Directing immediate bail upon charge-sheet filing without arrest, subject to trial court conditions.
- Recognizing and impleading the Interim Resolution Professional in criminal proceedings tied to corporate insolvency.
- Mandating that charges be read over and bail granted on the same day for expedited disposal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – existing law on Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction and bail at charge-sheet stage affirmed.