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 | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both judges concurred in the judgment |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court practice on SLP(Crl.) bail and closure of parallel proceedings |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (procedure, bail, quashing, corporate insolvency interface) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an SLP(Crl.) can result in closure of multiple FIRs on same facts and bail post-charge-sheet when malafide allegation is rejected |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners accused in FIR No. 396/2025 at Agra sought quashing on ground of civil nature and mala fide harassment; High Court declined relief. Parallel FIRs before Delhi and Agra magistracies were either stayed or withdrawn. A final report (charge-sheet) was filed on 07.07.2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts when dealing with SLP(Crl.) bail and multiplicity of proceedings |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering consolidation or quashing of overlapping FIRs |
| Follows | Established Supreme Court practice on SLP(Crl.) bail and inherent power to manage parallel criminal proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court permitted impleading of an Interim Resolution Professional in criminal proceedings connected to corporate insolvency.
- Parallel FIRs on identical facts may be closed (as “not pressed” or stayed) without prejudice when parties so agree.
- Once a charge-sheet is filed and investigation fails to substantiate allegations, bail can be granted in SLP(Crl.) proceedings.
- Petitioners need not be taken into custody when charge-sheet is on record and malafide intent is not shown.
- Complainant’s choice to withdraw or not press parallel applications is respected, streamlining litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioners’ mala fide harassment plea was rejected by the High Court; no fresh material to quash FIR No. 396/2025.
- Three FIRs on same facts were identified; two were either stayed by Sessions Judge or withdrawn as “not pressed” by Magistrate.
- Charge-sheet (Final Report No. 144/2025 dated 07.07.2025) found allegations unsubstantiated—no reason to deny bail.
- Special Leave jurisdiction under Article 136 permits bail direction when charge-sheet is filed and merits are not shaken.
- Interim Resolution Professional impleaded to protect corporate interests; entitled to summon witnesses.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- FIR relates to a civil dispute, registered with mala fide intent to harass.
- Three overlapping criminal proceedings amount to multiplicity and abuse of process.
Respondents
- Allegation of cheating: refund was diverted to another account with the same name, indicating collusion.
- Corporate entity’s interests before NCLT require criminal forum protection; IRP must be heard.
Factual Background
- FIR No. 396 of 2025 was registered at PS Tajganj, Agra alleging cheating in a corporate-related transaction.
- Petitioners sought quashing before the High Court on grounds of civil nature and mala fide harassment; relief was denied.
- Parallel FIRs/applications under Sections 156(3) and 173(4) CrPC in Delhi and Agra were respectively stayed and withdrawn.
- Investigation concluded with a final report finding no evidence, and a charge-sheet was filed on 07.07.2025.
- On SLP(Crl.), Supreme Court directed closure of parallel cases, impleaded the IRP, and granted bail on conditions.
Statutory Analysis
No detailed statutory interpretation was undertaken; the Court applied established principles of SLP(Crl.) bail and closure of parallel proceedings without invoking or interpreting specific provisions afresh.
Procedural Innovations
- Authorization to implead the Interim Resolution Professional, representing a corporate creditor, in criminal proceedings originated from an insolvency context.
- Streamlining of parallel criminal processes by closure of non-pressed or stayed FIRs on same facts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established SLP(Crl.) bail and inherent powers to manage multiplicity of FIRs in Supreme Court proceedings.