The Supreme Court has directed that the petitioners, accused in a cheating case involving a corporate refund dispute, be granted bail upon their appearance before the jurisdictional court. The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran disposed of the Special Leave Petition, observing that since the chargesheet has already been filed, there is “no reason why the petitioners should be taken into custody.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 396 of 2025, registered on June 9, 2025, at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. The petitioners, Smt. Shalini Bhateja and another, had initially approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. They contended that the registration of the FIR was done with a mala fide intention to cause purposeful harassment.
The High Court declined to quash the FIR, rejecting the plea of mala fide intention. However, the High Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court within 60 days and granted them liberty to apply for regular or anticipatory bail, to be considered in accordance with existing precedents. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, Advocate Ashish Pandey, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and does not warrant the initiation of a criminal complaint. He further pointed out that “there are three different cases filed before various courts on the very same set of facts.”
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, representing the 3rd respondent (the complainant), contended that the case involved “clear cheating.” He submitted that a refund, which was purportedly granted, was “surreptitiously credited to another person’s account of the same name.”
The Senior Counsel argued that the persistent demand for the refund by the accused, even after it had been paid, was the result of a “collusion and conspiracy entered into between the accused to cheat the corporate entity.” He informed the Court that the corporate entity is currently before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointed.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court allowed the application to implead the Interim Resolution Professional.
The Court noted the existence of multiple proceedings initiated on the same facts:
- Delhi Proceedings: A complaint (CC No. 1971/2023) filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, seeking registration of an FIR.
- Agra Proceedings (Previous): An application (CC No. 19488/2025) filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, which was later disposed of as not pressed after the police reported that the dispute was civil in nature.
- Current FIR: The subject matter of the present appeal (FIR No. 396/2025).
The State of U.P. filed a counter affidavit stating that the investigation into the current FIR had concluded. A Final Report (Chargesheet) No. 144/2025 was submitted to the court on September 11, 2025.
The Bench recorded that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the other parallel proceedings need not be proceeded with. Consequently, the Court ordered that the proceedings before the Chief Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, “shall also stand closed, without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties.”
The Decision
Noting that the chargesheet has been filed in the present case, the Supreme Court held:
“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.”
The Court issued the following key directions:
- The petitioners must appear before the jurisdictional court within one month.
- Upon their appearance, “they shall be granted bail and the charges read over on the same day.”
- The bail is to be granted on conditions found satisfactory by the jurisdictional court.
- The petitioners were directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the case.
- The complainant is entitled to be represented by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Court also clarified that the IRP would be entitled to seek the summoning of former officials or directors conversant with the subject matter to be examined as witnesses. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with these directions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr. v. The State of U.P. & Ors.
- Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11375 of 2025 (2026 INSC 28)
- Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Pandey
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad (Senior Advocate)
