[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Praveen Bhatt vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 January, 2026
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JD:55250]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10419/2025
1. Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava S/o Late Sh. Avadhesh
Shrivastava, Aged About 50 Years, Office At New Link
Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Railway, Maharashtra. India
2. Ashok Dubey S/o Shri Ramapati Dubey, Aged About 51
Years, Office At New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai,
Railway, Maharashtra. India
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ajay Murdiya S/o Late Sh. Mahaveer Singh, R/o 9
Govindpura, Opposite Mb College Ground, Bhupalpura,
Udaipur. Raj..
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10167/2025
1. Vikram Praveen Bhatt S/o Praveen Bhatt, Aged About 56
Years, 41/42/b Ganga Bhawan, J.p Narayan Road, Off Yari
Road, Andheri West, Vasawa, Mumbai Maharashtra-
400061
2. Shwetambari Bhatt W/o Vikram Praveen Bhatt, Aged
About 44 Years, 41/42/b Ganga Bhawan, J.p Narayan
Road, Off Yari Road, Andheri West, Vasawa, Mumbai
Maharashtra-400061
3. Mehbub Ansari S/o Usmaan Ansari, Aged About 40 Years,
B/304 Shiv Oswal Palace, Chs Ltd., Meera Road, Thane
Mumbai, Maharashtra
4. Mudit Buttan S/o Dharmendra Butta, Aged About 29
Years, R/o. G-58, 3D Floor, West Patel Nagar, Delhi-
110008
5. Krishna Vikram Bhatt D/o Vikram Bhatt, Aged About 30
Years, 2B/1718 Raheja Classic, New Link Road, Andheri
West, Near Infinity Mall Azad Nagar, Mumbai
Maharashtra-400053
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/01/2026 at 08:37:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (2 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home
Department, Secretariat Building, Rajasthan
2. Ajay Murdia S/o Late Sh. Mahavir Singh, 9 Govindpura,
M.b College, Ground Ke Samne, P.s Bhopalpura Udaipur,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Prakash with
Mr. P.D. Shukla
Mr. Mahendra Godara
Mr. DS Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, PP
Mr. RS Bhati, PP
Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr.Adv. (through VC)
with
Mr. Pranav Bhardwaj
Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, IG Police,
Udaipur along with
Superintendent of Police, Udaipur &
Investigating Officer (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
1 Arguments concluded on 15/12/2025
2 Judgment Reserved on 15/12/2025
3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 5/01/2026
REPORTABLE :
1. The present judgment was reserved on 15.12.2025 at
the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench during the rotational
sitting, and in accordance with the roster assigned, thereby.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties submitted their
written submissions, the last of which were filed on 17.12.2025.
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (3 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
The judgment is being pronounced on the first working day of the
Court after the conclusion of the winter vacations.
2. The present petitions are filed for quashing & setting
aside the FIR No.213/2025 registered at Police Station
Bhupalpura, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections
318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) and entire proceedings arising out of
the impugned FIR. Taking note of the fact that the present
petitions are intrinsically interlinked, arising out of the same issue
and seeking identical reliefs, the Court deemed it appropriate to
club the present petitions for joint consideration. Accordingly, the
same are being adjudicated by way of this common judgment. It
is clarified that the present judgment shall apply mutatis mutandis
to both the petitions.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submitted that the principal accused i.e. petitioner
No.1, namely Shri Vikram Praveen Bhatt, is a well-known and
reputed film maker in the Indian Film Industry, and petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 in SBCRLMP No.10167/2025 are close relatives and/or
business partners associated with him. Further, the petitioners in
the connected SBCRLMP No.10149/2025, namely Shri Gangeshwar
Lal Shrivastava and Shri Ashok Dubey, are duly elected office
bearers of the Federation of Western India Cine Employees
(hereinafter referred to as "FWICE"); they were, at the relevant
point of time, discharging their official functions as Treasurer and
Chairman of the Dispute Redressal Committee respectively, and
were required to facilitate resolution of disputes inter se between
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (4 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
the members and complainants strictly in accordance with Clause
17A of the governing provisions, which deals with the constitution
and functioning of dispute settlement committees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were introduced to each
other through a common acquaintance, namely Shri Dinesh
Katariya, in the month of April, 2024. It was further submitted
that respondent No.2, who is the present complainant, expressed
his intention to produce a biopic based on his own life however,
subsequently his wife expired. It was further contended that
discussions in this regard were initiated between the parties; and
pursuant thereto, on 24.05.2024, a First Term Sheet Agreement
was executed between VSB LLP, a firm of petitioner No.1, and
Indira Enterprises, belonging to respondent No.2, for the
production of two films, with a total proposed investment of Rs. 40
Crore. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the said
agreement specifically contained a clause conferring exclusive
jurisdiction upon the Courts at Mumbai in the event of any dispute
arising between the parties.
5. It was further submitted that subsequently, on
21.06.2024, an Addendum Term Sheet was executed between the
parties, whereby the scope of collaboration was expanded to
include the production of four films, upon an additional investment
of Rs. 7 Crore. Learned counsel further submitted that in the
month of September, 2024, a grand launch event was organised at
JW Marriott, Mumbai, wherein the production of the said four films
was publicly announced. It was also contended that on
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (5 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
21.03.2025, one of the films was completed; however, upon its
release in March, 2025, the film did not perform as expected
commercially. Consequently, respondent No.2 unilaterally rolled
back the finance model earlier contemplated under the
agreements and ignored his own contractual obligations, thereby
committing breach on his part.
6. It was submitted that as a consequence of the
aforesaid breach by respondent No.2, he, in collusion with his
employees, unlawfully removed and misappropriated confidential
financial documents belonging to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in-
between the period of March, 2025 and September, 2025; and
that such acts were committed in connivance with Shri Rakesh
Panigrahi and Assistant Editor Shri Jitendra Sharma. It was also
apprised to the Court that in respect thereof, an FIR was
registered on 10.10.2025 at Police Station Versova, Thane,
Mumbai, against Shri Rakesh Panigrahi and Shri Jitendra Sharma
for offences under Sections 316(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pertaining to theft, misappropriation and
unauthorised removal of confidential data. It was further
submitted that thereafter, on 23.10.2025, respondent No.2, in
collusion with Shri Rakesh Panigrahi, hatched a conspiracy to
falsely implicate the present petitioners, which culminated in the
registration of the impugned FIR(s).
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel submitted
that the present proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are
wholly illegal, untenable in law, and liable to be quashed and set
aside on the following, amongst other, grounds:
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (6 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
7.1 The impugned FIR emanates from a purely contractual
relationship between two private parties, and the agreements
were acted upon in their true letter and spirit, and the dispute, if
any, is civil and commercial in nature. Thence, the attempt to give
a criminal colour to a civil dispute is unwarranted and contrary to
the settled position of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the ratio encapsulated in Indian Oil Corporation v.
NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (3) SCC (Crl.) 188.
7.2 The agreements between the parties expressly confer
exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts at Mumbai, and therefore,
initiation of criminal proceedings elsewhere is without jurisdiction
and unsustainable.
7.3 An alternative remedy by way of amicable settlement
through FWICE was already being pursued, during which a
demand of Rs. 11 Crore was raised at the behest of the
respondents.
8. It was submitted that, in view of the above, the
registration of the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom
amount to a gross misuse and abuse of the criminal justice
system. Learned counsel further submitted that the timing of the
impugned FIR, when examined in the light of the sequence of
events, clearly establishes that the same is nothing but a
counterblast to the earlier FIR lodged at Mumbai against the
employees of respondent No.2.
9. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (7 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
335, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings which are
manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior
motive to wreak vengeance or to settle private and personal
scores deserve to be quashed. It was further submitted that even
a bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR itself reflects
that out of the four films, two were duly completed, and the
remaining two could not be completed only on account of the
unilateral rollback of the finance model by the complainant,
thereby demonstrating that the dispute is purely commercial in
nature.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that no preliminary
enquiry, as mandated under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C., was conducted
to ascertain the existence of a prima facie criminal offence prior to
registration of the FIR, in clear violation of the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 1. It was
contended that by invoking the forum at Udaipur and disregarding
settled principles of law, the authorities, in connivance with the
police officials, acted with mala fide intent and in a conspiratorial
manner, resulting in vindictive and arbitrary action against the
petitioners.
11. It was further submitted that there exists a clear and
well-recognised distinction between a mere breach of contract and
the offence of criminal breach of trust, and the facts of the present
case, even if taken at face value, disclose at best a breach of
contract and not any criminal offence. In this regard and in
support of the contentions made insofar, reliance was placed upon
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter
alia, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Anr., 2024 (10) SCC 690. It was also submitted that the
agreements between the parties were acted upon openly and in
the public domain, and there was neither any allegation nor any
material to suggest the existence of fraudulent or dishonest
intention on the part of the petitioners from the inception of the
transaction, which is a sine qua non for offences of cheating or
criminal breach of trust. Therefore, it can be deduced that the
impugned FIR is an afterthought, amounts to abuse of the process
of law, and impermissibly seeks to convert a civil dispute into a
criminal prosecution.
12. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the conduct of
the Rajasthan Police is in blatant disregard of the mandate laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2014 (8) SCC 273 and 2009
(14) SCC 244: Sundar Babu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
inasmuch as the authorities ignored the settled safeguards, failed
to conduct a preliminary enquiry, did not issue notices or
summons, and proceeded with arrest in undue haste, in violation
of established legal principles.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the present
petitions be allowed and the impugned FIR, along with all
proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed and set aside.
14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, along with
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (9 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
respondent No.2, stoutly opposed the prayers made by learned
counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the present
petitions are based on misrepresentation and suppression of
material facts and that the petitioners have not approached this
Court with clean hands.
15. It was further submitted that a preliminary enquiry was
duly conducted. A 'parivad' was received at the instance of
respondent No.2 on 28.10.2025, whereupon the Superintendent of
Police, Shri Yogesh Goyal, on the same date i.e. 28.10.2025,
directed that a preliminary enquiry be undertaken. It was
submitted that the Investigating Officer, Shri Chhagan Purohit,
conducted the preliminary enquiry and also visited Mumbai in this
connection. During the course of such enquiry, it was revealed
that an amount of Rs. 2.50 Crore, paid as the initial amount, was
siphoned off and diverted. It was also submitted that subsequent
to the first contract, a fresh LLP Agreement was executed
conferring jurisdiction upon Udaipur, which agreement was
executed by Mrs. Shewtambhari Bhatt. During the enquiry,
WhatsApp chats were also examined.
16. It was submitted that under the revised agreement,
four films for different amounts were required to be completed
within stipulated timelines, subject to clarification and
reconciliation of bills by respondent No.2 or his authorised
representatives. However, the said clarification was not provided
and the funds were diverted. It was further submitted that
investigation was conducted through various vendors, creditors,
and persons associated with the film industry. Nonetheless, past
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (10 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
incidents were also examined, including FIR No.205/2023 and
proceedings before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, wherein insolvency
proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. Only thereafter,
directions were issued by the Superintendent of Police on
06.11.2025 for registration of the present FIR, and pursuant to
the preliminary enquiry, the FIR came to be registered on
08.11.2025.
17. It was apprised to the Court that notices were issued to
the accused-petitioners through e-mail on 23.11.2025,
25.11.2025, and 29.11.2025; however, the replies received were
unsatisfactory and evasive. It was submitted that proceedings
relating to anticipatory bail moved before the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court is concealed by the petitioners.
18. It was submitted that in view of the prevailing
circumstances, witnesses and evidence were being tampered with
and white-washed, and therefore arrest of the accused-petitioners
became inevitable. It was submitted that investigation has
revealed siphoning and diversion of funds towards settlement of
old dues and favoured vendors not related to respondent no.2 or
parties to the contract. It was alleged that funds were returned by
raising inflated invoices and settling the same personally, involving
relatives and the accused themselves, which is evident from the
enquiry and factual report.
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted
that from the inception of the transaction, the accused-petitioners
insisted on exclusive control over utilization, routing, and
accounting of funds, with no transparency or timely production.
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (11 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
The first tranche of Rs. 2.50 Crore paid on 31.05.2024 through
Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) for a specific purpose was
diverted and layered through pre-identified vendors and
intermediary accounts without any bona fide production activity. It
was submitted that funds allocated for different films were
similarly diverted and that the films were never actually
commenced. The investigation revealed a modus operandi
involving inflated and fictitious invoices, which were refunded and
transferred back to the accused persons after deduction of
nominal commission. In support of the contentions made insofar,
reliance was placed on transaction trails showing siphoning of
funds to caterers and make-up artists, demonstrating dishonest
diversion of entrusted funds.
20. It was submitted that all accused-petitioners played
interconnected roles and acted in concert, and that even other
connected petitioners exerted pressure and coercion upon the
complainant to extract a further amount of Rs. 11 Crore. It was
also submitted that under pressure and influence, attempts were
made to manipulate settlement proceedings and record incorrect
order sheets.
21. It was also submitted that due to financial distress,
multiple litigations and insolvency proceedings are pending against
the petitioners, and that material facts relating to police
complaints and initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code against the firms of the petitioners have been
suppressed. In support of the contentions made insofar, reliance
was placed upon a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (12 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
Supreme Court, inter alia, M/s. Niharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315,
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat :
(2018) 3 SCC 104, Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh : (2022) Live Law (SC) 396, Central Bureau
of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc. : (2023) SCC Online
SC 379, Mahendra KC Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. :
(2022) 2 SCC 2019, Punit Beriwal Vs. The State of NCT of
Delhi & Ors.: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 & Preeti Saraf Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi : 2021 (16) SCC 142.
22. It was submitted that applications for
anticipatory/transit bail filed by the accused-petitioners were
dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
23. In conclusion, it was submitted that a bare perusal of
the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences involving
dishonest intention and diversion of funds, necessitating a full-
fledged investigation. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present
petitions be dismissed.
24. Upon assiduous consideration of the rival submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the
material placed on record, and examination of the FIR and the
attendant circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the impugned FIR or the
proceedings arising therefrom.
25. At the outset, this Court notes that the allegations
contained in the FIR, read as a whole and taken at their face
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (13 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
value, disclose specific and detailed assertions of siphoning,
diversion, and misappropriation of funds entrusted for a limited
and defined purpose. The FIR, coupled with the material collected
during preliminary enquiry, prima facie reveals allegations of
dishonest intent, diversion of funds through intermediary
accounts, and use of inflated and fictitious invoices. Such
allegations cannot be brushed aside as mere breach of contract at
this stage. Withal, this Court also deems it apposite to jot down as
follows:
25.1 That the record demonstrates that a preliminary
enquiry was duly conducted prior to registration of the FIR. The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that no such enquiry
was undertaken is belied by the material on record. It is noted
that notices/summons were issued to the petitioners on
23.11.2025 and 29.11.2025, to which prima facie unsatisfactory
replies were submitted. The existence of such notices and replies
clearly negates the plea of non-compliance with the mandate laid
down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the alleged violation of due
procedure of law.
25.2 The record reflects that upon receipt of the Parivad on
28.10.2025, the Superintendent of Police directed a preliminary
enquiry, which was carried out by the Investigating Officer,
including visits to Mumbai and examination of relevant documents
and electronic material. Only thereafter, upon satisfaction
regarding commission of cognizable offences, directions were
issued for registration of the FIR.
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (14 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
25.3 That the preliminary enquiry, read in conjunction with
the record, prima facie reveals allegations of financial diversion of
funds from the inception of the transaction, including diversion to
entities not contemplated under the private contract. The
execution of an additional agreement, whereby the jurisdiction
clause was altered from Mumbai to Udaipur, also forms part of the
allegations which are subject matter of investigation.
25.4 That the record further reflects references to past
proceedings, including criminal antecedents and insolvency-related
proceedings qua the firm of the petitioners, indicating financial
distress. These aspects form part of the investigative material and
cannot be ignored at this stage.
26. At this juncture, this Court cannot conclusively
determine whether the dispute is purely one of breach of contract
or constitutes the offence of criminal breach of trust. Prima facie,
the material emerging from the enquiry conducted by the State,
as well as the allegations levelled by the complainant, disclose
sufficient grounds warranting investigation. The existence of such
prima facie material restrains this Court from entering into the
merits of the allegations or undertaking an assessment of the
veracity thereof while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of
BNSS.
27. Additionally, it can be noted that merely because a
transaction has a contractual foundation does not ipso facto bar
criminal proceedings, where the allegations disclose ingredients of
cognizable offences. The material on record indicates that the
prosecution case is not confined to non-performance of contractual
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (15 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
obligations, but extends to allegations of deliberate diversion of
funds, lack of transparency, and dishonest utilisation of monies
entrusted for film production.
28. The plea of mala fides and the argument that the FIR is
a counterblast to earlier proceedings are matters which involve
disputed questions of fact. At this stage, such issues cannot be
conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of
BNSS. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to
conduct a mini trial or to evaluate the probative value of evidence,
particularly when investigation is still ongoing.
29. This Court is further mindful of the settled legal position
that quashing of criminal proceedings at the threshold is an
exception and not the rule. The parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) are
required to be applied with circumspection. In the present case,
the allegations do not fall within the categories warranting
quashment, as the FIR cannot be said to be inherently absurd,
mala fide on its face, or devoid of the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences.
30. Withal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court whilst governing the
scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, in
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), held that at
the initial stage the sole test is whether the FIR discloses a
cognizable offence, and if it does, the enquiry must proceed
without judicial interference, as the police have a statutory right to
investigate and the High Court cannot examine the truthfulness of
allegations at this stage. Similarly, in Dineshbhai Chandubhai
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (16 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
Patel (supra), the Apex Court categorically held that once the
ingredients of an offence are disclosed, the High Court must
refrain from acting as an investigating agency or appellate forum
to test the veracity of allegations, as factual enquiries lie
exclusively within the domain of the investigating officer. The
same principle was reiterated in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay
(supra), wherein it was held that the truthfulness of allegations is
a matter for trial and proceedings cannot be quashed merely
because the complainant may have a personal grudge, so long as
a cognizable offence is disclosed. Further, in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379), the
Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conduct of a 'mini-trial',
holding that at this stage the Court is only required to assess
whether sufficient material exists to proceed and anything beyond
that amounts to a prohibited mini-trial; and lastly, in Mahendra
KC (supra), the Apex Court clarified that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the High Court
must examine the allegations "as they stand" without adding or
subtracting anything, and that analysing evidence or testing the
veracity of allegations at the initial stage is impermissible and
beyond the scope of inherent jurisdiction.
31. It is also pertinent to note that in the matter at hand
applications for anticipatory/transit bail moved by the petitioners
have already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
The investigation, as reflected from the record, is at a crucial
stage and involves examination of financial transactions, vendors,
and interlinked roles of the accused-petitioners. Interference by
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (17 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
this Court at this juncture would impede a fair and complete
investigation.
32. Thence, in summation of the aforementioned it can be
noted that the FIR, read as a whole, along with the material
collected during the preliminary enquiry, prima facie discloses
allegations of siphoning of enormous amount upto the tune of Rs.
2.5 Crore qua the total amount in question being 47 Crore
approximately, diversion and misappropriation of entrusted funds,
involving dishonest intent, use of intermediary accounts and
inflated or fictitious invoices, which cannot be reduced to a mere
breach of contract at this stage. It is note-worthy that it prima
facie appears that the petitioners have approached the Court with
unclean hands, nonetheless, concealing material facts, for
instance, the anticipatory/transit bail application so moved; that
the record shows that upon receipt of the parivad on 28.10.2025,
a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Investigating Officer,
including examination of documents and electronic material, and
only thereafter was the FIR registered; that notices issued to the
petitioners on 23.11.2025 and 29.11.2025 elicited prima facie
unsatisfactory replies, thereby negating any violation of the
mandate of Arnesh Kumar (supra) or due process; that the
material further reflects allegations of diversion of funds from the
inception of the transaction, creation of data with accelerated
charges, execution of an additional agreement shifting jurisdiction
from Mumbai to Udaipur, and references to past antecedents and
insolvency-related proceedings indicating financial distress of the
petitioners' firm, all of which form part of the investigative record
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (18 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
and cannot be ignored at this stage. Moreover, the controversy in
the present case arises out of an employer-employee relationship,
and not as a counterblast to the complaint/FIR made registered by
the petitioners, nevertheless, at this stage several disputed and
doubtful factual aspects have surfaced, the determination of which
necessarily requires a thorough investigation by the competent
authority, in accordance with law.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned FIR discloses prima facie
commission of cognizable offences and warrants a full-fledged
investigation. No ground is made out for invocation of the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.
34. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed, at the
threshold. Interim protection, if any granted, shall stand
dismissed/vacated in view of the dismissal of the present
petitions. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
35. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected
petition.
(SAMEER JAIN), J
Preeti Asopa
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
