TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vinayak Thakur, Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. JUDGMENT CRL.M.A.1209/2026 (stay) & CRL.M.A.5413/2026 (seeking interim protection) in CRL.M.C. 321/2026 AND CRL.M.C. 925/2026 (seeking recall of Non-Bailable Warrants) 1. Petitioner Achal Kumar Jindal, who seeks quashing of FIR No. 0142/2025 registered at P.S. EOW for commission of offences under Sections 420/409/120B IPC, has filed the abovesaid two applications in CRL.M.C. 321/2026 whereby he seeks stay of on-going investigation in the abovesaid FIR and also interim protection from arrest. It would be worthwhile to mention that application seeking interim protection has been moved after the issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against him by the court concerned. 2. Additionally, feeling aggrieved by such issuance of NBWs, he has also filed a substantive petition i.e. Crl.M.C.925/2026 and seeks recalling of such warrants. 3. The limited scope of consideration, at the moment, is whether the petitioner has been able to make out any case, warranting stay of investigation in the abovesaid FIR and whether he is entitled to any interim protection and recalling of NBWs. 4. It will be appropriate to narrate, in b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ul transactions to siphon off the funds of ECL. Thus, according to complainants, the allegations made in the Complaint have been, independently, verified by Observer. Such FIR also talks about one previously registered FIR i.e. FIR No. 89/2024 by the same complainants. It is, thus, claimed that action be taken against accused who have committed offences under Section 415/408/463/466/474/471 read with Section 120-B IPC. 9. Two accused i.e. Mr. S.P. Bagla and Sh. K.A. Johnson haver already been arrested and are, already, in Judicial Custody. 10. The present petitions are by the third accused i.e. applicant herein. 11. Since, as per investigating agency, he did not respond to the repeated notices, it obtained NBWs against him and he continues to evade arrest. 12. Let me now take note of the arguments advanced by both the sides. 13. Sh. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of FIR is gross abuse of the process of law and is actuated by mala fide. His broad contentions are as under:- (i) The registration of FIR is barred and proscribed as there was already one FIR prior in time i.e. FIR No. 89/2024 and, therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y depreciation in the value of share of ECL and even in relation to CCPS, if anyone can be said to be aggrieved, it would be M/s Teesta Retail Pvt. Ltd. But there is complaint from them. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that entire consideration amount of Rs. 175 crores had, actually, been paid by complainants to M/s Teesta Retail Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, even CCPS, redeemable after 20 years, have been procured, knowing fully well that these could not have been purchased. 14. While stressing that a civil matter has been given criminal colour, the details of previous matters have been stated. 15. Sh. Jethmalani submits that the complainants had, earlier, filed a Company Petition under Sections 241/242/244 of Companies Act, 2013, alleging oppression-and-mismanagement in ECL and therein also, similar averments had been made. In such petition, filed way back on 28.02.2024, they had, inter alia, sought relief of removal of all the three Directors of ECL. Such petition was allowed by learned National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLT) and vide order dated 15.05.2024, NCLT directed appointment of Administrator to manage the functions and affairs of the above comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it appropriate, he may bring the details of such transaction to the notice of the NCLT, where proceedings under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, are pending. The NCLT may, thereupon, pass appropriate orders. (iv) The proceedings before the RBI, pursuant to its show-cause notice and in view of the liberty granted by this Court, vide order dated 17.02.2025, shall continue and appropriate orders shall be passed, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. (v) The observations recorded in the order passed by the learned single Judge and in the impugned judgment will not influence the RBI when it takes a decision. The RBI shall also not be influenced by this order, granting stay. It shall take an independent decision on the merits of the matter and proceed in accordance with law. (vi) Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner and the shareholders, who have moved the NCLT, to move an application before the NCLT/NCLAT seeking appropriate directions. If any such application is filed, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned judgment, including the order of the learned single Judge and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s bad in law. 20. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel has addressed arguments in Crl.M.C.925/2026 and while adopting the abovesaid submissions, he emphasizes that coercive process cannot be issued as a 'pressure tactic' in disregard of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has not followed the spirit mandated and specified under Section 75 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the warrants could not have been issued without coming to specific conclusion, accompanied by reasons that such person, accused of a non-bailable offence, was evading arrest. It is stated that accused was already before this Court and while disregarding said fact, impugned order does not record any satisfaction that the petitioner is deliberately evading process of law and, therefore, the order is cryptic, mechanical and non-speaking. Relying upon Arun Kumar Parihar vs. State (Govt. NCTD): 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2767 and Sesa Goa Ltd. and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (and connected petition): 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1376, it is argued if NBWs are found issued in a mechanical manner, these ought to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned therein and, there is no attempt to convert a civil dispute into criminal. It is also, vehemently, contended that despite due notice and the undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court, the petitioner has failed to participate in investigation and is absconding and it was in the abovesaid backdrop only that non-bailable warrants were issued against him. It is argued that when the petitioner had an efficacious remedy by filing appropriate application seeking anticipatory bail, the reliefs sought in the present petitions are not permissible, particularly, when no exceptional circumstance has been disclosed and his two accused are already in custody. 25. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the precedents cited at the Bar. 26. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not filed any separate substantive petition seeking anticipatory bail. 27. Various orders passed by learned Predecessor Bench would indicate that objection was raised by the respondents on earlier occasions and it was argued that when such remedy is available, the stay on arrest cannot be sought by way invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inclined to entertain these special leave petitions filed against an adjournment order. It is for the petitioner, Achal Kumar Jindal, to approach the learned Judge or the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi in the event his case is not being taken up, despite the urgency therein being recorded in an earlier order passed by the High Court. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 30. On the basis of the urgent mentioning made before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, the petitions were transferred to this Court on 26.02.2026. 31. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that these petitions were heard at length on 26.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 in relation to the abovesaid applications. 32. Right here, it also needs to be mentioned that when Crl.M.C. No.321/2026 was taken up by learned Predecessor Bench on 15.01.2026, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, on instructions, assured that the petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO. Fact remains that despite requisite written intimation in this regard, the petitioner has not come ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court while observing that any such exercise of power is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. Para 10 of the abovesaid judgment reads as under:- "10. What is emphasised by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC would be only in the rarest of rare cases. This Court has also emphasised the right of the investigating officer to investigate the criminal proceedings. In our earlier judgment and order, in fact, we abstracted the principles laid down by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure in para 5 in of Siddharth case." 36. As already noted, the learned Predecessor Bench had, though, given liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to Section 438 Cr.P.C. of anticipatory bail, fact remains that the issue whether such kind of relief viz stopping of investigation and issuance of "no-coercive process" till the time quashing is decided, was left open and was not adjudicated, either way, albeit, liberty, time and again was granted to petitioner to file application for anticipatory bail. 37. Neeharika Infrastrcture is loud and clear on the abovesaid as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e equated or confused with the scope of investigation, which is much wider. Moreover, it is quite obvious that as per order passed by NCLT, a case of oppression and mismanagement was, actually, found made out and, therefore, the Board of Directors of ECL was suspended and there was direction for appointment of Administrator. The appeal is pending adjudication before the NCLAT and even as per order dated 12.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by NCLAT, in relation to appointment of the Observer, including the directions and powers given to such Observer, have been directed to continue to operate, with further condition that ECL shall though continue with its day-to-day business activities, it shall not enter into financial transaction exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-, without prior notice to the Observer. 44. Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel draw attention to the fact that the Observer did notice violation of the abovesaid condition which indicates the mala fide intention of the petitioner whose actions, despite abvoesaid specific directions, remain unabated. 45. Admittedly, earlier also there was an FIR which was registered on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us and connection, except for the fact that there is commonality of complainants and one accused. 47. No real benefit can be dug out from Arun Kumar Parihar as in that case, non-bailable warrants were, primarily, recalled as the status report submitted by the investigating agency indicated that petitioner had joined the investigation and was not absconding. The warrants had been issued in said case, merely, for the reason that according to the investigating agency, accused had not given requisite desired answers. While holding that accused was entitled to right to silence to prevent self-incrimination, the NBWs were recalled. Herein, the situation is not akin as petitioner has not even bothered to join investigation, despite giving assurance before this Court. In Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 791, on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant, the concerned accused was found absent on the date of hearing and, therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Despite cancellation of such non-bailable warrants on a subsequent date by the same court, the accused was arrested as he could not produce any proof regarding cancellation of ....