Nda Securities Ltd vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

2025 INSC 676 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 4379 OF 2025)

NDA SECURITIES LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant before this court assails the order dated 25.02.2025,

passed by the High Court of Delhi, which has allowed a petition Signature Not Verified

under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘CrPC’) Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.13 17:54:37 IST Reason:

filed by respondent no. 2 (through its Director); thereby directing the

1 release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock

Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter ‘BSE’) as payout for sale of certain shares

in his favor on superdari subject to him furnishing a Guarantee of

the same amount, before the Magistrate Court.

3. The appellant and respondent no. 2 are both companies engaged in

the trade of shares/securities and are registered with the BSE. On

07.08.2015, on a complaint made by the appellant (through its

Managing Director), under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was

registered under Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter ‘IPC’). In this FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the

appellant received a phone call by a person impersonating himself as

their client ‘Brij Mohan Gagrani’, to purchase 1 lakh shares of a

company named ‘Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. After the purchase was

executed, the said Brij Mohan Gagrani was called to confirm the

purchase but he denied making any such call to the appellant for the

abovesaid purchase. Ashish Agarwal, an agent of the appellant

company is said to have connived with the seller of the shares in

question to defraud the appellant. The BSE was thus requested to

stop payment to the seller of the shares.

4. Consequent to the FIR and the investigation it was revealed that

around 72000 shares (worth Rs. 15.90 lakhs) were sold by

2 respondent no. 2. The charge sheet was filed against one Amit Jain,

who is said to have made the alleged phone call. Amit Jain is the

main accused as per the charge sheet, though respondent no.2 is

revealed as the main beneficiary. Further, the charge sheet mentions

that to ascertain the role of respondent no. 2, the main accused (Amit

Jain) will have to be arrested and interrogated. Thus investigation is

still underway. Amit Jain meanwhile is absconding.

5. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed an application before

Magistrate Court for the release of the money withheld by the BSE.

This application was dismissed by an order dated 16.09.2016,

holding that the role of respondent no. 2 is under investigation, and

until investigation is finalized the release of the funds should not be

allowed.

6. Respondent no. 2 then filed a revision petition against the order dated

16.09.2016, which was also dismissed by an order dated 08.12.2016

passed by the Revisional Court. While dismissing the revision

petition, it was observed that the release of the funds will impact the

rights of the appellant. The investigation was however, directed to be

expedited.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, respondent no.

2 filed a Section 482 CrPC petition before the High Court. The High

3 Court allowed this petition by impugned order dated 25.02.2025, and

directed the release of the sale value of the shares in favor of

respondent no. 2. Now the appellant is before us, assailing the above

order.

8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record.

9. While allowing respondent no. 2’s Section 482 petition, the High

Court observed that the role of respondent no. 2 as being party to the

fraud cannot be ascertained as of now. It was held that respondent

no. 2 put his shares on the market genuinely and the sale value of

these shares cannot be denied to him merely because of the fraud

played on the appellant.

10. It is a settled position of law that while exercising the inherent

jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, the High Court is not supposed

to conduct a mini trial [See: Central Bureau of Investigation

v. Aryan Singh & Ors. (2023) 18 SCC 399 & Dharambeer

Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC

392].

11. It is our considered opinion that the High Court has travelled beyond

its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, by allowing the

petition filed by respondent. The High Court ought not to have made

any observations regarding the absence of any role played by

4 respondent no. 2 in the whole transaction because investigation is

yet to be completed. The charge sheet itself states that the main

accused (Amit Jain) is absconding and the role of respondent no. 2

can only be ascertained once the main accused is arrested.

Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the release of the

sale value of the concerned shares in favour of respondent no. 2, may

cause an irreparable loss to the appellant and vitiate the entire

investigation.

12. Moreover, in the present case it is pertinent to note that respondent

no. 2 was the main beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction.

As has been stated above, the chargesheet in the present case

mentions that the role of respondent no. 2 cannot be ruled out. The

role of respondent no. 2 has yet to be ascertained and a clear picture

would emerge only after the investigation. It is therefore premature

to give a clear chit to respondent no. 2 and hold that he is entitled to

the sale value of the shares sold by him, especially when the market

value is negligible. When the investigation is still underway, releasing

the sale value of the shares will frustrate the investigation. Both the

Magistrate Court as well as the Revisional Court, have rightly held

that the funds in question cannot be released at this stage. The High

Court should not have disturbed these findings.

5

13. Thus, in our opinion, the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the High

Court deserves to be set aside.

14. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the

case. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial

expeditiously.

15. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated

25.02.2025 is set aside. The sale value of the shares sold by

respondent no. 2 (amounting to Rs. 15.90 lakhs) shall be kept with

the BSE during the pendency of the trial, meanwhile.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

.........………………………….J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

.….....………………………….J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI, MAY 13, 2025.

6