Interim stay of investigation granted where prior complaints, director appointment timing, and lack of public servant involvement were disputed.

Interim protection against investigation was granted where earlier complaints on similar allegations had already yielded no action, the petitioner had become a director only after the loan facilities were sanctioned, and the FIR did not yet disclose material involvement of a public servant. The Court required a detailed reply and status report addressing the earlier complaints, compliance with the CVC framework, and the role, if any, of public servants, and stayed investigation against the petitioner with no coercive action until further orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the facts of the case, interim protection by way of stay of investigation and no coercive action was warranted pending the CBI's reply and status report.

Analysis: The order records that similar allegations had earlier been the subject of two complaints, that no action had resulted from those complaints, and that the petitioner had joined the company as director only after the principal loan facilities had already been sanctioned. The Court also noted the petitioner's grievance regarding non-compliance with the CVC framework and the absence of material in the FIR showing involvement of a public servant at that stage. In these circumstances, the Court directed the CBI to file a detailed reply and status report dealing with the earlier complaints and the role, if any, of public servants.

Conclusion: Interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner, and the investigation as against him was stayed with no coercive action to be taken until further orders.

---