Interference with criminal investigation denied as no exceptional circumstances; interim protection and recall of warrants refused.

Challenge to stay an ongoing criminal investigation and recall of non-bailable warrants was considered against the threshold for interference with investigations; the court applied Neeharika and Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari principles that interference is permissible only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed or non-interference causes miscarriage of justice, and examined BNSS provisions and availability of anticipatory bail. Finding material differences between earlier and impugned FIRs, evidence of NCLT findings and observer reports, and petitioner's non-cooperation, the court found prima facie cognizable offences and dismissed the applications.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to (i) stay of the ongoing investigation in FIR No. 0142/2025, (ii) interim protection from arrest, and (iii) recall of non-bailable warrants issued against him.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the FIR prima facie discloses no cognizable offence or whether there is such abuse of process or likelihood of miscarriage of justice as to justify staying investigation or granting interim protection. The Court applied the principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat that interference with an ongoing investigation is permissible only in rare and exceptional cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed or non-interference would cause miscarriage of justice. Relevant procedural provisions considered include Section 75 and Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the availability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court conducted a surface-level comparison of the earlier FIR (No. 89/2024) and the impugned FIR (No. 0142/2025) and found the allegations and scope of investigations to be materially different. The record showed that an NCLT order had found mismanagement/oppression and an Observer had reported irregularities; further, the petitioner had given undertakings but failed to join investigation and remained inaccessible despite notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023. In these circumstances the Court held there was prima facie material disclosing cognizable offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and found no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to stay investigation or recall warrants.

Conclusion: The applications seeking stay of investigation, interim protection from arrest, and recall of non-bailable warrants are dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

---