NDA SECURITIES LTD.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

                 [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
       in his favor on superdari subject to him furnishing a Guarantee of
       the same amount, before the Magistrate Court.
3.     The appellant and respondent no. 2 are both companies engaged
       in the trade of shares/securities and are registered with the BSE.
       On 07.08.2015, on a complaint made by the appellant (through
       its Managing Director), under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was
       registered under Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code
       (hereinafter ‘IPC’). In this FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the
       appellant received a phone call by a person impersonating himself
       as their client ‘Brij Mohan Gagrani’, to purchase 1 lakh shares of a
       company named ‘Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. After the purchase was
       executed, the said Brij Mohan Gagrani was called to confirm the
       purchase but he denied making any such call to the appellant for
       the abovesaid purchase. Ashish Agarwal, an agent of the appellant
       company is said to have connived with the seller of the shares in
       question to defraud the appellant. The BSE was thus requested to
       stop payment to the seller of the shares.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                           363

            NDA Securities Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.


4.   Consequent to the FIR and the investigation it was revealed that
     around 72000 shares (worth Rs. 15.90 lakhs) were sold by respondent
     no. 2. The charge sheet was filed against one Amit Jain, who is said
     to have made the alleged phone call. Amit Jain is the main accused
     as per the charge sheet, though respondent no.2 is revealed as the
     main beneficiary. Further, the charge sheet mentions that to ascertain
     the role of respondent no. 2, the main accused (Amit Jain) will have
     to be arrested and interrogated. Thus investigation is still underway.
     Amit Jain meanwhile is absconding.
5.   Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed an application before Magistrate
     Court for the release of the money withheld by the BSE. This
     application was dismissed by an order dated 16.09.2016, holding
     that the role of respondent no. 2 is under investigation, and until
     investigation is finalized the release of the funds should not be allowed.
6.   Respondent no. 2 then filed a revision petition against the order dated
     16.09.2016, which was also dismissed by an order dated 08.12.2016
     passed by the Revisional Court. While dismissing the revision petition,
     it was observed that the release of the funds will impact the rights of
     the appellant. The investigation was however, directed to be expedited.
7.   Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, respondent no. 2
     filed a Section 482 CrPC petition before the High Court. The High Court
     allowed this petition by impugned order dated 25.02.2025, and directed
     the release of the sale value of the shares in favor of respondent no. 2.
     Now the appellant is before us, assailing the above order.
8.   We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record.
9.   While allowing respondent no. 2’s Section 482 petition, the High
     Court observed that the role of respondent no. 2 as being party to the
     fraud cannot be ascertained as of now. It was held that respondent
     no. 2 put his shares on the market genuinely and the sale value of
     these shares cannot be denied to him merely because of the fraud
     played on the appellant.
10. It is a settled position of law that while exercising the inherent
    jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, the High Court is not supposed to
    conduct a mini trial [See: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan
    Singh & Ors. (2023) 18 SCC 399 & Dharambeer Kumar Singh v.
    The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC 392].
11. It is our considered opinion that the High Court has travelled beyond its
    inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, by allowing the petition
364                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports



       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
       (Amit Jain) is absconding and the role of respondent no. 2 can only
       be ascertained once the main accused is arrested. Considering the
       same, we are 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.
12. Moreover, in the present case it is pertinent to note that respondent
    no. 2 was the main beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction.
    As has been stated above, the chargesheet in the present case
    mentions that the role of respondent no. 2 cannot be ruled out. The
    role of respondent no. 2 has yet to be ascertained and a clear picture
    would emerge only after the investigation. It is therefore premature
    to give a clear chit to respondent no. 2 and hold that he is entitled to
    the sale value of the shares sold by him, especially when the market
    value is negligible. When the investigation is still underway, releasing
    the sale value of the shares will frustrate the investigation. 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 High
    Court should not have disturbed these findings.
13. Thus, in our opinion, the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the
    High Court deserves to be set aside.
14. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the
    case. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
15. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated
    25.02.2025 is set aside. The sale value of the shares sold by
    respondent no. 2 (amounting to Rs. 15.90 lakhs) shall be kept with
    the BSE during the pendency of the trial, meanwhile.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan