Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Panam Packers Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank on 12 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26270
1 WP-25492-2023
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 12 th 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 counsel for
the respondent No.2.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 12-09-2025
16:59:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26270
2 WP-25492-2023
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 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26270
3 WP-25492-2023
"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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26270
4 WP-25492-2023
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)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
