Justice Ansul quashes order of 2020 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in a matter of new FIR post settlement of dispute relating to dowry, marriage

In Ashok Kumar Choubey @ Ashok Choubey & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Ansul delivered a 4-page long judgement dated May 27, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "7. In view of the matter that the dispute relating to dowry and marriage was settled between the parties and the new FIR relates to allegation of molestation and continuance of this prosecution is bad in law, malafide and abuse of the process of the Court. The FIR lodged at Delhi is continuing and the same may be taken to its logical conclusion. In view thereof, order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna (In-charge) in Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed." The judgement was reserved on March 18, 2026 upon hearing the parties. Prior to Justivce Ansul the case was heard by Justices Prabhat Kumar Singh, Partha Sarthy, Sandeep Kumar and Soni Shrivastava. 

Notably, Justice Sandeep Kumar had stayed the proceedings of the trial court by his order dated March 27, 2025 during pendency of the application. The case was filed in the High Court on January 24, 2022 and registered on February 4, 2022 in the matter arising out of P.S.case dated July 28, 2018.

The application was filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated September 14, 2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna (In-charge) in Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 346 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Court has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case was that the informant alleged that marriage of her daughter was fixed between respective parents Ashok Kumar Choubey (petitioner no. 1) and Om Prakash Tiwari. Ring Ceremony was held at Delhi at the residence of Petitioner no. 1. On May 12, 2018, Petitioner no 1 visited Patna and informant’s husband gave Rs. 6 lakhs cash to him. On June 15, 2018 informant and her husband visited at the residence of Petitioner no. 1 where the petitioners demanded Rs. 10 lakh cash and one Honda City Car. Thereafter, marriage was cancelled on July 21, 2018. Later the marriage was attempted to be settled but due to unavoidable issues the marriage negotiations broke down. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties had gathered before the SHO, Rajendra Nagar on July 22, 2018 i.e. the petitioner no. 1, the proposed bridegroom and father of the bride. Both the parties gave a letter to the SHO claiming that they have decided not to get the marriage ceremony conducted and they have returned the goods of each other and they have no complaint against each other. Moreover, the girl an filed FIR in the Rajendra Nagar (New Delhi) Police Station. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that police submitted final form in this case bearing final report dated October 31, 2019 stating that the case was found to be false. However, magistrate differing with the final form took cognizance under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Justice Ansul observed: "The crux of the allegation is that a marriage negotiation went bad. Even though some gadgets or money were exchanged but there is a document clearly showing that the parties returned their gifts and settled their dispute amicably. Still the instant case was filed and thereafter the daughter of the informant filed Central Delhi Rajendra Nagar P.S. Case No. 182 of 2018 on 19.09.2018. The lady in the FIR has not stated that the document signed by the parties on 22.07.2018 was either forged or obtained by any wrongful means. She has plainly written about the same and then has stated that she wishes to lodge the FIR in view of the later development." 

 

Supreme Court makes its interim order absolute, grants protection from coercive steps

In Manoj Kumar Nirala & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 3-page long order dated May 4, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....we do not propose to make any direction other than what we had observed in the notice issuing order, i.e., the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Magistrate on each and every date trial is fixed by the Trial Magistrate, unless any exemption is granted to him. The interim order is made absolute. 6. We further make it clear that so long the petitioner continues to abide by the aforesaid condition, no coercive step will be taken against him for securing his personal appearance." In the interim order dated April 9, 2026, the Court had directed that "the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with Complaint Case No. C-889 of 2024 filed before the Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in 2024 under Sections 406, 420, 387, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the condition that they appear before the trial magistrate on each fixed day." 

The SLP arose out of impugned final order dated March 12, 2026 passed by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court. The counsel for Sonu Kumar, the respondent no.2-complainant placed before the Supreme Court, an order dated April 23, 2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench in Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. S.L.P. (Crl.) No.16221 of 20251. On perusal of the order dated April 23, 2026, the Court recorded its concurrence with the views expressed by the Coordinate Bench.

The Court observed: "....we may observe that the special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna rejecting his application for anticipatory bail. In view of such rejection, the petitioner is now under an apprehension of being arrested by the police even though no warrant of arrest had been issued under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On facts, therefore, at the time the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court, he could have no reasonable apprehension of being arrested in connection with trial of a private complaint. The petitioner invited trouble for himself by unsuccessfully applying for anticipatory bail before the High Court." 

The case had arisen out of PS. Case of 2024 from Thana-East Chanparan. In his 3-page long order dated March 12, 2026, Justice Singh had rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners upon considering the nature of accusation and bank statement. Apprehending their arrest in a complaint case, punishable for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners had approached the court. As per complaint petition, these petitioners had offered to sell their 10 dhur land to the complainant on payment of total Rs.30,00,000/-, whereupon, the complainant paid total Rs.29,88,222/- to these petitioners, but despite receiving the said money, these petitioners did not execute the sale-deed and further demanded Rs. 20 Lakhs from the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded his money, these petitioners did not return the same and also threatened the complainant to kill.

The counsel for the petitioners had submitted that petitioners are innocent and committed no offence. They were simply a victim of false implication. He had submitted that petitioners have not taken any money from the opposite party no. 2 in lieu of selling his land. As a matter of fact, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 had taken ornaments from the shop of petitioners and when petitioners demanded their money, the complainant has filed this false complaint case. The counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that petitioners had cheated the complainant by taking a sum of Rs. 29,88,222/- from him, out of which, complainant paid Rs. 24,88,222/- in the bank account of petitioners and Rs. 5 lakhs in cash. In support of his submission, counsel for  the opposite party no. 2 had annexed bank statement of complainant/O.P.No.2 to supplementary counter affidavit.
 

Supreme Court modifies anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Sandeep Kumar

In Putul Rai @ Putul Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan passed a 3-page long order dated May 5, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....this Court has deprecated the practice of the High Court to direct the applicant to surrender and apply for regular bail while rejecting the anticipatory bail prayer. 5. In such circumstances, we do not find a good reason to entertain the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, we deem it appropriate to expunge the direction in the impugned order which requires the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail though, it goes without saying that if the petitioner has been required by the Complaint Court to appear before it, the petitioner must comply with such a direction. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this special leave petition stands disposed of." The High Court's 3-page long order dated February 9, 2026 was passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar.  

Justice Kumar's order had rejected the anticipatory bail application and the petitioners were directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

Supreme Court observed:"2. It is not stated that the Court where the complaint proceedings are pending has issued coercive processes, such as non-bailable warrant, to secure the presence of the petitioner. In such circumstances there exists no material for the petitioner to apprehend her arrest." 

It recalled it decision in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika vs. State of Jharkhand and Another 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676, wherein, the Court observed:“10. Once the Court takes cognizance and issues summons, all that the accused has to do is to appear before that Court and join the proceedings. Why should the accused go before the Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, and pray for anticipatory bail? Police has no power to arrest the accused in a complaint case unless there is a non bailable warrant issued by that Court along with the summons.”

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in connection with a Complaint Caseof 2023 instituted under Sections 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code  As per prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner and her husband was that they had entered into agreement for sale and have cheated the complainant of Rs. 14,60,000/.  The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner was innocent and she was the wife of co-accused, Bhushan Rai, who was granted anticipatory bail by the Court below. He submitted that the petitioner also deserves anticipatory bail. Since the petitioner had not taken any amount, she was entitled for grant of bail. It was also submitted that she being the wife of the co-accused was not involved in the crime. 

Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail to Sardar Iqbal Singh in a cheating case with regard to money dispute

In Sardar Iqbal Singh @ Iqbal Singh Bagga @ Iqbal Singh vs.The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 4-page long order dated March 20, 2026 allowing the appeal for pre-arrest bail.. The prayer made in the appeal was for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant in connection with FIR No.308/2024 dated June 26, 2024 registered at Police Station Patrakar Nagar, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

 

The counsel for the appellant submitted that from a plain reading of the FIR, it was evident that it was a money dispute between the parties. The complainant was seeking to get the same recovered by initiating criminal process, which was nothing but misuse thereof. The state's counsel submitted that the appellant cheated the complainant. 

 

Supreme Court observed: "5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, in our opinion, the appellant deserves concession of pre-arrest bail. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail in connection with aforesaid FIR No.308/2024 on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Needless to add that appellant will continue to cooperate during investigation.

Supreme Court sets aside bail denial order by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan

In Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Suryakant and Joymalya Bagchi  passed a 4-page long order dated October 31, 2025, wherein, it granted leave and set aside the 2-page long order dated March 17, 2025 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court concluded:"It is, however, not in dispute that further investigation is still going on and the appellant, after he was subjected to custodial interrogation, is presently lodged in judicial custody. In such circumstances, when investigation is yet to be completed, the conclusion of trial will doubtless take some time, and the appellant has already served some time in custody, it seems to us that the appellant can be released on bail at this stage. 3. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. "

The appellant had prayed for enlargement on bail in FIR of 2019 registered at P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champaran under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B)/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2002. The appellant, his brother and other family members had constituted a Cooperative Society, known as SWARN lndia Multi State Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.. The investors were allured to invest in the Society with a promise of handsome returns. The amounts so deposited were, however, allegedly misappropriated; leading to registration of multiple FIRs against the appellant, his brother and other associates. The subject FIR was one of those cases in which the appellant was arrested on January 16, 2024. There were about nine other cases registered against him. The appellant claimed that he was neither a Director nor an authorised signatory of a bank account of the Society.  The State counsel pointed out that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the appellant was the Managing Director of the Society. 

Upon hearing the case in the High Court, Justice Sharan noted that the petitioner along with other co-accused were said to have defalcated the money of the customers deposited in the Company Swarn India Multi Estate Credit Cooperative Society Limited. APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail petition. Justice Sharam concluded: "6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present." Supreme Court has set aside this order.  

Justice Arun Kumar Jha dismisses writ petition, imposes cost of Rs 50, 000, petitioner's counsel tenders apology to High Court

In Vinod Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Saran & Ors. (2025), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court passed a 5-page long judgement dated October 15, 2025. The judgement concluded:''I am of the considered opinion that the concealment/suppression of vital facts makes the petition of the petitioner liable to be dismissed but with substantive cost and reliance could be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Jai Bhagwan and Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 127 wherein for suppression of facts, exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed with cost. The cost is quantified at Rs.50,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner in the coffer of Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. If not paid, the Registry is directed to recover the same by taking appropriate action against the petitioner.'' 

The other seven Respondents were: Inspector General of Police, Saran, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran, S.S.P., Saran, Rural SP, Saran Bihar, DSP, Chhapra,Saran, Officer In Charge, Chhapra, Saran and Awadh Bihari Pandey

The writ petition was filed for quashing the FIR in connection with a Chapra Town P.S. case of 2023 dated June 18,  2023 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The judgement recorded that from perusal of record, it appears that by order dated June 24, 2025, on the prayer of counsel for the petitioner, the Coordinate Bench ordered that till further orders, the petitioner would not be arrested in connection with Chhapra Town P.S. case of 2023. Awadh Bihari Pandey, the informant of Chapra Town P.S. case of 2023 was made party as Respondent no.8 and he appeared in this case and filed counter affidavit as well as one I.A.No.01 of 2025 for vacating the interim order of stay dated June 24, 2025 whereby arrest of the petitioner was stayed till further orders. 

It was submitted on record by Awadh Bihari Pandey, the Respondent no. 8 that the petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands and earlier the petitioner had moved to the High Court by filing Cr. Misc. No.67248/2023 seeking bail. By order dated December 13, 2023, the provisional bail was granted to the petitioner with direction to pay Rs.32.10 lacs to the informant within four months. But due to default of the petitioner, even after repeated extensions, provisional bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated December 13, 2023, was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court below immediately vide order dated May 9, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67248/2023. But the petitioner concealed this fact and filed Cr.W.J.C.No.1304/2025 and got a favourable order staying his arrest. The same was in complete violation of the orders of the High Court dated May 9, 2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No.67248 of 2023. 

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was no requirement while filing the writ petition for mentioning the fact about dismissal of bail petition or orders passed by the Coordinate Bench about grant of provisional bail. The counsel, however, tenders apology for inconvenience caused to the High Court.

Justice Jha observed: ''When the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and prayed for stay of his arrest, the petitioner was duty bound to apprise this Court regarding all the facts in connection with the FIR for which quashing has been sought. A bare reading of two orders of this Court dated 09.05.2025 and 24.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67248 of 2023 and Cr.W.J.C.No.1304 of 2025, respectively, makes it abundantly clear that as soon as the petitioner did not get any favourable order in Cr. Misc. No.67248 of 2023, he moved before this Court by filing the present writ petition concealing this important fact about dismissal of his bail petition and other directions of the Coordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 67248 of 2023. The act of the petitioner in not mentioning the facts about Cr. Misc. No.67248 of 2023 amounts to active concealment and playing hide and seek with this Court. The petitioner is guilty of not approaching the Court with clean hands and playing fraud upon it.'' 

The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853, wherein, the observation of the Chief Justice Edward Coke of England made about three centuries ago was quoted. It reads: “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” and held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.  

Drawing in this decision, Justice Jha observed: One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and finally their Lordships held that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail rejection order by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan

In Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Chief Justice B.R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed a 2-page long order dated October 13, 2025 after condoning the delay. The order reads:'' 4. By way of an ad-interim relief, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is directed to be released on
bail...". It added: ''Needless to state that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer as and when directed to do so.'' The SLP (criminal) arose out of impugned final order dated December 2, 2024 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court

In Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Sharan had passed a 2-page long order dated December 2, 2024, wherein, he had concluded:''6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.''

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in Nautan P.S. Case No. 225 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons are said to have committed fraud of Rs.11 lakh by opening various savings accounts, term deposits, other accounts and issuing fake deposit certificates. 

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner was not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submitted that in terms of Clause7 (xii) of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Accountability Policy, the accountability of an employee is: “No accountability will be fixed for any lapse, which has not been pointed out in the two successive audit reports or four years from the date of the event (i.e. occurrence of lapse) whichever is later”. He also submitted that the departmental proceeding was still going on. The petitioner had one criminal antecedent. The APP for the State as well as the counsel for the Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Siwan, Bihar, the opposite party no. 2 had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the investigation was still going on.

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail rejection order by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan in a case from Khagaria

In Abhinav Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi passed an order dated September 8, 2025, wherein, bail was granted to the petitioner. The order reads: "In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail in connection with the FIR No. 1019 of 2021, registered with Police Station-Mufassil, District-Khagaria, Bihar, if not required in any other case, subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/ Trial Court. 

In his order dated February 7, 2025, Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the High Court as he apprehende his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 147 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 

Earlier also the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner had filed before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5565 of 2023 but he had withdrawn and the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed with a liberty to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail. Justice Sharan had observed: "Now, the petitioner had not surrendered before the court below and filed the second anticipatory bail application on the new ground. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.". Supreme Court has reversed this order. 

Supreme Court stays proceedings before Trial Court, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refused to quash FIR in a private dispute under corporate law

In Sarita Bajaj & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order dated July 18, 2025 staying further proceedings before the Trial Court. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had passed a 20-page long judgement dated May 9, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"....I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the F.I.R. being Kotwali P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024, dated 18th August, 2023, cannot be quashed. 32. The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. 33. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest."

Drawing on the judgement passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, Justice Chaudhari was "convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."  He observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

Sarita Bajaj, the Petitioner had invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 at Kotwali Police Station in 2024 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer of Kotwali Police Station, alleging inter alia, that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He also alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, along with other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. The parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. 

The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicated that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. It was confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, Petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On February 27, 2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

On February 27, 2021, on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated August 30, 2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so. On February 27, 2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on February 28, 2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a resolution, dated August 31, 2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On April 3, 2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting.

The informant had already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in 2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated February 27, 2021 were forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs. Notably, certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition were not complied with or honoured by the informant. In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which has been registered as a Title Suit of 2023. Among other allegations, the informant alleged that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant also claimed that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. 

Under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. 

Besides this, an application was filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in 2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400. 

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On November 8, 2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated December 4, 2023.

Notably, in the counter affidavit, filed by Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the Respondent No. 5, dated February 4, 2025, the High Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties falsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.. In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid.

However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. Later, Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Court, claiming that, as a Director of Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as August 2, 2021. In the application under Section 7 of IBC, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated September 20, 2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by NCLT, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to NCLAT New Delhi.

 

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refuses to quash FIR because forgery is a serious offence with criminal liability, decided not to evaluate merit of allegations at FIR stage

In Sarita Baja & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court concluded:"The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest." The judgement was delivered on May 9, 2025. The two other petitioners are: Ajay Kumar Bajaj and Awi Bajaj. The other four respondents are: Additional Chief Secretary, the Home Department, Government of Bihar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Station House Officer, Kotwali, Patna and Sushil Kumar Bajaj.

The Court refused to quash the FIR lodged in Kotwali, Patna dated August 18, 2023 because "Forgery (under Section 463 IPC) and using forged documents (under Section 471 IPC) are considered serious offences with substantial criminal liability. This Court recognize that quashing an FIR for such serious offenses like forgery could undermine the integrity of the legal system and prevent the discovery of the truth. At the stage of the FIR, the Court will not evaluate the merit of the allegations. This Court believes that the police are required to investigate the facts and verify the authenticity of the documents before a final decision is made." 

The Court observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

The petitioner had invoked Constitutional writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 alfor the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to alleging that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He further alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are full brothers. On February 17, 2021, both parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, alongwith other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. Additionally, the parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicate that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant has acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. Additionally, it has been confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. On 27.02.2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. vide a notice dated 27.02.2021 and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. On the same date, i.e., on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated 30.08.2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so.

On 27.02.2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently  issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on 28.02.2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company.

Notably, Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Similarly, another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a  resolution, dated 31.08.2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On 03.04.2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting the informant has already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under C.P. No. 250 KB/2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated 27.02.2021 are forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs.

It is important to note that certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition have not been complied with or honoured by the  informant.

In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which was registered as Title Suit No. 02 of 2023.

The informant alleges that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant further claims that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. It is important to note that under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. Additionally, an application has been filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under CP (IB) No. 327/KB/2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400/-.

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On 08.11.2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated 04.12.2023.

The Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully  transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties alsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.

In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid. However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. 

Later on, the Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the present Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as 02.08.2021. In the application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated 20.09.2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 

It finding reads: “24. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was Director from 12.05.2014 Buildcon Private Limited' i.e.. the Corporate Debtor. Letter dated 20.09.2010, which is sheet anchor of the Financial Creditor to contend that there was interest component of 12% P.A. clearly becomes unauthorised and unreliable. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was not Director on 20.09.2010 of the Corporate Debtor and could not have written to the Financial Creditor, containing the terms and conditions of loan whereas no loan was ever extended by Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor of the terms and conditions as contained in the Letter dated 20.09.2010. Letter dated 20.09.2010 was impeached and termed as fabricated Letter.” 

It also found: "30. The sequence of the event and transaction between the Parties clearly proves that transfer of the amount by Financial Creditor to the Appellant were done by one Family Company to another Family Company and was not by way of loan nor any disbursal for any time value of money has been proved from any material on the record.” 

Taking note of these findings, the High Court observed that it "is convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."