LexNDA SECURITIES LTD. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 360 : 2025 INSC 676 NDA Securities Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2582 of 2025) 13 May 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petition u/s.482 of the CrPC filed by respondent no.2 (through its Director); thereby directing the release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) as payout for sale of certain shares in his favor on superdari subject to him furnishing a Guarantee of the same amount, before the Magistrate Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 120B – In FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the appellant received a phone call by a person impersonating himself as their client BMJ, to purchase 1 lakh shares of a company – After the purchase was executed, the said BMJ was called to confirm the purchase but he denied making any such call to the appellant for the abovesaid purchase – The charge-sheet was filed against one AJ, who is said to have made the alleged phone call – AJ is the main accused as per the charge sheet, though respondent no.2 is revealed as the main beneficiary – AJ is absconding – Respondent no.2 filed application before the Magistrate Court for release of the money withheld by the BSE – Application was dismissed – Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed – Petition filed u/s.482 before the High Court was allowed, thereby directing release of money – Correctness: Held: It is a settled position of law that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC, the High Court is not supposed to conduct a mini trial – In considered opinion of this Court, the * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 361 NDA Securities Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. High Court has travelled beyond its inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC, by allowing the petition filed by respondent – The High Court ought not to have made any observations regarding the absence of any role played by respondent no. 2 in the whole transaction because investigation is yet to be completed – The charge-sheet itself states that the main accused (AJ) is absconding and the role of respondent no. 2 can only be ascertained once the main accused is arrested – Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the sale value of the concerned shares in favour of respondent no. 2, may cause an irreparable loss to the appellant and vitiate the entire investigation – Moreover, in the present case it is pertinent to note that respondent no. 2 was the main beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction – The chargesheet in the present case mentions that the role of respondent no. 2 cannot be ruled out – Both the Magistrate Court as well as the Revisional Court, have rightly held that the funds in question cannot be released at this stage – The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 10, 11] Case Law Cited Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh & Ors. [2023] 2 SCR 819 : (2023) 18 SCC 399; Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC 392 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC; Incomplete investigation; Absconding accused; Main accused; Fraudulent intention; Main beneficiary; Release of funds. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2582 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2025 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No. 1213 of 2017 362 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhishek Gautam, Keshari Kumar Tiwari, Shubham Soni, Ms. Varsha Bharti, Neeraj Goswami. Advs. for the Respondents: Raja Thakare, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rohit Khare, Prakash Gautam, Ms. Astha Singh, Rishikesh Haridas, Deepender Hooda, C.P. Malik. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this court assails the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the High Court of Delhi, which has allowed a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘CrPC’) filed by respondent no. 2 (through its Director); thereby directing the release of Rs. 15.90 lakhs being withheld by the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter ‘BSE’) as payout for sale of certain shares
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.