Madhya Pradesh High Court
Utkarsh Trivedi vs Punjab National Bank on 12 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-27049-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 25492 of 2023
M/S PANAM PACKERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Dubey and Shri RS Chauhan, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Bharat Ashok Chitale and Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 25516 of 2023
SANJAY TRIVEDI THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
UTKARSH TRIVEDI
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shri RS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Bharat Ashok Chitale and Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 12-09-2025
16:59:48
2 WP-27049-2023
counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 27048 of 2023
SUNIL KUMAR TRIVEDI
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shri RS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4.
Shri Bharat Ashok Chitale and Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned
counsel for the respondent No.5.
WRIT PETITION No. 27049 of 2023
UTKARSH TRIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2.
Shri Bharat Ashok Chitale and Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned
counsel for the respondent No.3.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the matter is
3 WP-27049-2023
squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the
case of Surendra Patwa & Ors. vs. RBI & Ors. (WP No. 23800/2021) and
other connected petitions. The operative part of the order (para-12 & 13)
reads as under:-
"12. So far as the challenge to the registration of FIR is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission to withdraw the said prayer at this stage with
liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law at
a later stage. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the
judgment dated 25.04.2025 has categorically held that
"an FIR, by taking cognizance of an offence, merely
sets the law into motion, has nothing to do with a
decision on the administrative side, made by a different
authority. Even in the case where an FIR is registered
based on an administrative action, setting aside the
latter on a technical or a legal premise would not ipso
facto nullify the former. Meaning thereby, when an
administrative order is set aside on the ground of non-
compliance of a legal necessity or mandate, the facts
mentioned thereunder could still be the basis for the
registration of an FIR. For ready reference, paras 7 and
8 of the judgment dated 25.04.2025 are reproduced
below:-
"7. An FIR, by taking cognizance of an
offence, merely sets the law into motion. This
has nothing to do with a decision on the
administrative side, made by a different
authority. Merely because the facts are same
or similar, one cannot say that in the absence
of a valid administrative action, no offence
which is otherwise cognizable can be
registered. At that stage, one only has to see
the existence of a cognizable offence, based
on the FIR registered. Therefore, even
assuming that there is no action forthcoming
4 WP-27049-2023
on the administrative side, an FIR can be held
to be maintainable. The scope and role of
both the actions are totally different and
distinct, more so when undertaken by
different statutory/public authorities.
8. The foundational facts may well be the
same. Even in a case where an FIR is
registered based on an administrative action,
setting aside the latter on a technical or a
legal premise would not ipso facto nullify the
former. It is ultimately a matter for
investigation by the appropriate authority.
When an administrative order is set aside on
the ground of non-compliance of a legal
necessity or mandate, the facts mentioned
thereunder could still be the basis for the
registration of an FIR. Hence, the High
Courts have clearly failed to take note of the
same."
13. In view of the above, we hereby clarify that
quashing the declaration of fraud will not affect the
action of the respondents registering an FIR against the
petitioners. The liberty has already been granted to the
petitioners to challenge the FIR by separate proceedings
in accordance with the law. The respondents shall be at
liberty to proceed against the petitioner under the
revised Master Directions."
02. In view of the aforesaid, the present petitions are also disposed
of in terms of the order passed in the case of Surendra Patwa (supra) and the
said order shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present cases also.
03. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of all the
connected petitions.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
5 WP-27049-2023
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
