State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or p

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that informant has lodged first information report making false and baseless allegations and that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants. Applicants have been falsely implicated in this case merely because they are family members of co-accused Babu Lal Gupta. Applicants have absolutely no concern with the alleged company, namely, 'MJK Producer Company Limited', MJK Nidhi Limited, PLM India Limited, Pashudhan Co-operative Society Limited and Pashupati Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited. No amount has been given by informant or any other person to the applicants and in fact the said investors were issued bonds by the aforesaid companies. It was submitted that co-accused Babu Lal Gupta and one Ajay Kumar Gupta have even lodged a first information report against proprietors of Pashudhan Life Stroke & Marketing India Limited, PLM India Limited and some other companies. Learned counsel has referred first information report and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that applicants are named in the first information report and that there is evidence that applicants have induced various investors to make investment in the said companies by making false promise. In this connection, learned counsel for informant has referred statements of several victims. It was submitted that applicants were actively involved in inducing innocent persons to invest their money in the said companies and no amount was paid back to the victims.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that the informant has lodged first information report against applicants and co- accused persons, alleging that applicants and co-accused persons have induced the informant as well as several other persons to make investment in the alleged companies on pretext that they would provide double of invested amount within a specific period. It appears from record that during investigation, several persons have been examined, who have invested amount in the said companies. The witnesses have clearly named the applicants and stated that applicants have contacted them and asked them to deposit amount in the said companies on pretext that in a specific period double amount would be paid to them, but their amount was not returned back and the said companies were closed. It was shown that one first information report was lodged by co-accused Babu Lal Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta against some of the alleged companies but that fact itself would not be sufficient to exonerate the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, provided the applicants cooperate in early disposal of discharge application.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 'SP'/- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that informant has lodged first information report making false and baseless allegations and that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants. Applicants have been falsely implicated in this case merely because they are family members of co-accused Babu Lal Gupta. Applicants have absolutely no concern with the alleged company, namely, 'MJK Producer Company Limited', MJK Nidhi Limited, PLM India Limited, Pashudhan Co-operative Society Limited and Pashupati Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited. No amount has been given by informant or any other person to the applicants and in fact the said investors were issued bonds by the aforesaid companies. It was submitted that co-accused Babu Lal Gupta and one Ajay Kumar Gupta have even lodged a first information report against proprietors of Pashudhan Life Stroke & Marketing India Limited, PLM India Limited and some other companies. Learned counsel has referred first information report and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that applicants are named in the first information report and that there is evidence that applicants have induced various investors to make investment in the said companies by making false promise. In this connection, learned counsel for informant has referred statements of several victims. It was submitted that applicants were actively involved in inducing innocent persons to invest their money in the said companies and no amount was paid back to the victims.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that the informant has lodged first information report against applicants and co- accused persons, alleging that applicants and co-accused persons have induced the informant as well as several other persons to make investment in the alleged companies on pretext that they would provide double of invested amount within a specific period. It appears from record that during investigation, several persons have been examined, who have invested amount in the said companies. The witnesses have clearly named the applicants and stated that applicants have contacted them and asked them to deposit amount in the said companies on pretext that in a specific period double amount would be paid to them, but their amount was not returned back and the said companies were closed. It was shown that one first information report was lodged by co-accused Babu Lal Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta against some of the alleged companies but that fact itself would not be sufficient to exonerate the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, provided the applicants cooperate in early disposal of discharge application.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 'SP'/- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad