Patna High Court
Samrat SehgalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences and therefore the application to quash the FIR was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, senior logistics officials of Dabur India Ltd., filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to quash FIR No. 128 of 2025 registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging that the dispute with the informant, Sanjay Kumar Modi, was purely contractual and covered by an arbitration clause. The FIR alleged that Dabur officials forcibly entered the informant's godown, seized documents, threatened staff, and attempted to evict the informant to avoid payment of dues. The petitioners argued that proceeding with criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process, while the State and the informant contended that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Digambar Pathak, Neeharika Infrastructure, Bhajan Lal), held that the FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and that the matter did not fall within the narrow categories for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the application to quash the FIR was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence sufficient to justify continuation of criminal investigation.
- Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in the underlying contract bars criminal proceedings.
- Whether the court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 126(2), 303(2), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352, 61
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quashing of FIR
- arbitration clause
- cognizable offence
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Section 528 BNSS
- contract dispute
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31581 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Samrat Sehgal S/O Ramesh Chander Sehgal R/O C-3/3117, Vasant Kunj,
South West Delhi, Delhi 110070,, presently working as Chief Global
Logistics, Dabur India Limited, Corporate Office, Sahibabad, Gaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh- 2010101.
2. Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay S/O Vinod Kumar Upadhyay R/O 63/Tower
11, Palm Olympia, Gaur City, Noida Extension, VTC, Greater Noida, P.O-
Greater Noida, Distt.- Gautambudha Nagar, State- Uttar Pradesh 201308,
Presently working as National Logistics Manager, Dabur India Limited,
Corporate Office, Sahibabad, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 2010101.
3. Gajjar Manthar @ Manthar Gajjar S/O Hitendrabhai Gajjar R/O B Surabhi
Appartment, Nehurpark Vastrapur, Ahmedabad City, Manekgab, Ahmedaba,
Gujrat- 380015, Presently working as Zonal Logistics Manager, Dabur India
Limited, Corporate Office, Sahibabad, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 2010101.
4. Md. Sabir Afrozuddin Roshan @ Roshan Afrozuddin Sabir S/O Mdf. Sabir
Hussain R/O Dr. Siddique Lane, Kanhauli Naka Road, P.S- Town Musahari,
Ramna, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842002, presently working as Regional
Logistics Executive, Dabur India Limited, Plot No. 187, Bhikhua, Ward No.
12, Bhikhua Fatuha Road, PS- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Kumar Modi S/O Late Basudev Modi R/O Plot No. 187, Bhikhua,
Ward No. 12, Bhikhua Fatuha Road, P.S- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant and learned counsel for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
2/9
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashing of the F.I.R. being
Fatuha P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2),
318(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘the BNS’).
3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the F.I.R.,
is that the informant, Sanjay Kumar Modi, Director of M/s
Shivani Shreya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., entered into a Carrying and
Forwarding (C&F) Agreement with Dabur India Ltd., pursuant
to which his company was appointed as C&F Agent for the
State of Bihar and subsequently for the State of Jharkhand after
furnishing bank guarantees and making substantial investments
towards godowns, manpower and logistics infrastructure. It is
alleged that the informant duly discharged his contractual
obligations honestly and efficiently. However, despite repeated
demands, outstanding dues amounting to more than Rs. 2 crores
at Patna and approximately Rs. 61 lakhs at Ranchi were not paid
by Dabur India Ltd. It is further alleged that in January, 2025, on
the pretext of conducting an audit, the accused persons, who are
officials and representatives of Dabur India Ltd., in connivance
with security personnel, forcibly entered the godown premises,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
3/9
took illegal control thereof, restrained the staff of the informant
from entering the premises, seized documents and records,
obstructed access to official papers and deleted important data
from computers. The F.I.R. further alleges that the accused
persons abused, intimidated and threatened the informant and
his staff with dire consequences, including threats to life, with
an intention to forcibly oust the informant from C&F operations,
misappropriate goods and records, and evade payment of the
outstanding dues.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the dispute between the parties is purely contractual in nature,
arising out of a C&F agreement which contains an arbitration
clause, and therefore continuation of the criminal proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is contended
that the F.I.R. does not disclose any criminal offence and is
liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant as
well as learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
quashing and submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R., if
taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of
cognizable offences. It was contended that sufficient prima
facie materials exist on record warranting investigation and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
4/9
prosecution.
6. Learned counsel for the informant placed reliance
upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Digambar Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has
been held as under:
“ It is well settled that mere existence
of an arbitration clause in the
contract between the parties is not a
sufficient ground for quashing the
criminal proceedings if the necessary
ingredients of a criminal offence are
made out from the allegations and the
materials collected during the course
of investigation or inquiry. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that
the order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. However, since we find that
the High Court has not considered the
allegations in the FIR and the
materials collected during the course
of investigation, the matter would
have to be remitted back to the High
court for fresh consideration.”
7. Having considered the submissions and upon
perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that
the allegations made in the F.I.R., when taken at their face
value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
5/9
offences against the accused persons.
8. It is well settled that the FIR is not an encyclopedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Thus, at the initial stage, the Court is not required to
scuttle the investigation.
9. In the aforesaid context, it would be proper to
quote the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2021(2) PLJR, 229 (SC), wherein
Apex Court having taken into consideration various judgments
enumeration the following principles of law as quoted in
paragraph No.10 of the said judgment which are reproduced
hereinunder :-
I. Police has the statutory right and
duty under the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences;
ii. Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii. However, in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report the
Court will not permit an investigation to go
on;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
6/9
iv The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, in
the 'rarest of rare cases. (The rarest of rare
cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not to
be confused with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death
penalty, as explained previously be this
Court;
v. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi. Criminal proceedings ought not to
be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii. Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception and a rarity than an
ordinary rule;
viii. Ordinarily, the courts are barred
from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however,
recognized to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the abuse of the process by Section
482 Cr.P.C.
ix. The functions of the judiciary and
the police are complementary, not
overlapping;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
7/9
x. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of
justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
xi. Extraordinary and inherent powers
of the court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice;
xii. The first information report is not
an encyclopedia which must disclose all
facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in
the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion
based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it
amounts to abuse of process of law. During
or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the
learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
xiii. The power under Section 482
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
8/9
Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide
power requires the court to be cautious, It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the court;
xiv. However, at the same time, the
court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the
cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint; and
xv. When a prayer for quashing the FIR
is made by the alleged accused, the court
when it exercises the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether or
not the allegations in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and is
not required to considered on merits whether
the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit
the investigating agency/police to investigate
the allegations in the FIR.
10. The present case does not fall within any of the
categories enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash the
criminal proceedings.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31581 of 2025 dt.06-01-2026
9/9
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and having
regard to the fact that the investigation is still in progress, and
further considering that even as per the allegations made in the
F.I.R., the involvement of the petitioner is under suspicion, this
Court finds no ground to interfere in the present matter.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…