Can the High Court conduct a mini trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Inherent jurisdiction — Mini trial — Release of sale value during investigation — Superdari —
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Inherent jurisdiction — Mini trial —
Held: While exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court is not supposed to conduct a mini trial. A High Court that records findings on the role of a party in the transaction travels beyond that jurisdiction. (¶10, 11)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Release of sale value — Pending investigation —
Held further: Where the main accused is absconding and the role of a party can be ascertained only on his arrest, it is premature to give a clear chit to that party. Releasing the sale value at that stage would frustrate the investigation. (¶11, 12)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Orders of the Magistrate and Revisional Courts —
Held further: The orders of the Magistrate Court and the Revisional Court holding that the funds cannot be released ought not to have been disturbed. Appeal allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the sale value kept with the Stock Exchange during the trial. (¶12, 15)
Can the High Court conduct a mini trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?
No. The High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot conduct a mini trial. Here the High Court observed that respondent no. 2 had put his shares on the market genuinely and that the sale value could not be denied to him; that is a finding on the merits of an investigation still underway, and it travelled beyond the inherent jurisdiction. [¶10, ¶11]
Can a Section 482 CrPC court observe that a party played no role before the investigation is completed?
No. A Section 482 CrPC court cannot observe that a party played no role where the investigation is yet to be completed. The charge sheet itself stated that the main accused was absconding and that the role of respondent no. 2 could be ascertained only once the main accused was arrested and interrogated. [¶11]
Can the sale value of shares be released to the main beneficiary while investigation is still underway?
No. The sale value of shares cannot be released to the main beneficiary of an alleged fraudulent transaction where the investigation is still underway. It is premature to give a clear chit to such a party, releasing the sale value will frustrate the investigation, and it may cause an irreparable loss to the appellant. [¶12]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“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].”
“It is our considered opinion that the High Court has travelled beyond its inherent jurisdiction under Section 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 (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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record.
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.
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].
It is our considered opinion that the High Court has travelled beyond its inherent jurisdiction under Section 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 (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.
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.
Thus, in our opinion, the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.
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.
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.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. .........………………………….J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] .….....………………………….J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN] NEW DELHI, MAY 13, 2025.
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy