SHALINI BHATEJA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025 dtd. 9/6/2025 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra were before the High Court seeking to quash the same, declined by the impugned judgment. The contention of the petitioners that there was a mala fide intention to cause purposeful harassment in registering the FIR, was rejected by the High Court. It was also directed that the petitioners appear before the Trial Court within 60 days, in which circumstance liberty was also granted to apply for regular/anticipatory bail, directed to be considered as per the existing precedents of this Court.

(2.) Before us, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that the dispute if at all is civil in nature and there is no cause for initiating a criminal complaint. It is also argued that there are three different cases filed before various courts on the very same set of facts.

(3.) Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that there was clear cheating involved in denying the refund, which was already granted, but surreptitiously credited to another person's account of the same name. The persistent demand for refund even after it was paid was a result of a collusion and conspiracy entered into between the accused to cheat the corporate entity, the 3rd respondent represents. It is also submitted that the corporate entity is now before the National Company Law Tribunal (for brevity, 'NCLT') and the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the NCLT has filed an impleading application.