Shalini Bhateja vs State Of U.P

2026 INSC 28 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11375 of 2025 Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus

The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The Petitioners, accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025 dated

09.06.2025 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District

Agra were before the High Court seeking to quash the

same, declined by the impugned judgment. The

contention of the petitioners that there was a mala fide

intention to cause purposeful harassment in registering

the FIR, was rejected by the High Court. It was also

directed that the petitioners appear before the Trial

Court within 60 days, in which circumstance liberty was

also granted to apply for regular/anticipatory bail, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey directed to be considered as per the existing Date: 2026.01.06 18:01:51 IST Reason:

precedents of this Court.

Page 1 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025

2. Before us, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioners would point out that the

dispute if at all is civil in nature and there is no cause for

initiating a criminal complaint. It is also argued that

there are three different cases filed before various

courts on the very same set of facts.

3. Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would

contend that there was clear cheating involved in

denying the refund, which was already granted, but

surreptitiously credited to another person’s account of

the same name. The persistent demand for refund even

after it was paid was a result of a collusion and

conspiracy entered into between the accused to cheat

the corporate entity, the 3rd respondent represents. It is

also submitted that the corporate entity is now before

the National Company Law Tribunal (for brevity,

‘NCLT’) and the Interim Resolution Professional

appointed by the NCLT has filed an impleading

application.

Page 2 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025

4. At the outset, we allow IA No. 320742 of 2025 filed for

impleading the Interim Resolution Professional.

5. Admittedly, three FIRs were registered in three

different places as is revealed from paragraphs 11 and

12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1

and 2, the State and the Police Department. Paragraphs

11 and 12 are extracted hereunder:

“11. It has further been revealed that the Complainant in this case i.e. Nikhil Garg has earlier filed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Ld. CMM, Karkardooma Court, being CC No.1971 /2023 seeking direction to SHO P.S. Madhuvihar, Delhi for registration of FIR against Rajiv Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar s/o Ram Aasre, in which vide order dated 13.09.2024, the Ld. JMFC-04, Karkardooma directed registration of FIR against Rajiv Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar s/o Ram Aasre, against which the Petitioner No.2 herein filed Crl. Revision No. 206/2024 wherein vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi, the operation of the above order dated 13.09.2024 of Ld. JMFC-04 had been stayed.

Page 3 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025

12. It has further been revealed that the Complainant in this case i.e. Nikhil Garg has also filed an the application u/s 173(4) Cr.P.C. being C.C. No. 19488/2025 dated 05.05.2025 on same facts before the Cout1 of Ld. CJM, Agra, seeking direction to SHO Hariparvat, Agra for registration of Fl R against Rajiv Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar s/o Ram Aasre, in which the Ld. CJM sought a report from P.S. Hariparvat Agra in compliance of which, a report dated 08.05.2025 was submitted to the Ld. CJM by P.S. Hariparvat Agra stating that that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and the complainant in that case Nikhil Garg was trying to give criminal color to a civil dispute. Subsequently, the said application was disposed by the Ld. CJM as not pressed.”

6. The proceedings in the FIR referred to in paragraph 11

have been stayed by the Additional Sessions Judge and

that referred to in paragraph 12 has been withdrawn as

not pressed. It is the submission of both parties that the

proceedings which were sought to be quashed before

the High Court, the order rejecting which is impugned

herein, has proceeded to the stage of filing of

Page 4 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025 chargesheet which again is clear from paragraph 17 of

the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 which is

also extracted hereunder:

“17. It is pertinent to mention that after investigation, the I.O. has concluded the investigation and submitted in the concerned Court on 11.09.2025 a Final Report No. 144/2025 dated 07.07.2025 in connection with FIR bearing Case Crime No. 396/2025, P.S. Tajganj, Agra concluding that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused persons have not been substantiated from the investigation. True translated copy of Final. Report in Case Crime No. 396/2025, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE CA-l (Pg 9 to 19).”

7. The parties are ad idem that the other proceedings as

referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 need not be

proceeded with. The proceedings by way of C.C. No.

19488 of 2025 filed before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Agra has already concluded since it was not

pressed. The proceedings before the learned Chief

Magistrate, Karkadooma Court, C.C. No.1971 of 2023

Page 5 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025 shall also stand closed, without prejudice to the

contentions of either of the parties. The Additional

Sessions Judge-II, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi shall

also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2024 filed

before him as not pressed. Insofar as the present

proceedings in CC No. 396 of 2025 from Police Station

Tajganj, District Agra, chargesheet has been filed, in

which circumstance, there is no reason why the

petitioners should be taken into custody.

8. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional

court within a period of one month from today upon

which they shall be granted bail and the charges read

over on the same day. The bail shall be granted on such

conditions as are found satisfactory by the jurisdictional

court, at its discretion. It is further directed that the

petitioners cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the

case.

9. The complainant will be entitled to be represented by

the Interim Resolution Professional, who would also be

entitled to seek the summoning of any of the former

Officials/Directors/responsible persons, conversant

Page 6 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025 with the subject matter of the offence prosecuted, to be

examined as witnesses.

10. With the above directions, the Special Leave Petition is

disposed of.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

...………….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

...………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 06, 2026.

Page 7 of 7 SLP (Crl.) 11375 of 2025