LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Shrikant Ojhav.State of UP & Ors

Citation:
2026 INSC 482
Date:
12 May 2026
Reading time:
10 min read

Legal Analysis: Shrikant Ojha vs. State of UP & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 482 (Non‑Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari (Division Bench – the other judge’s name is not mentioned in the extract)
Date of Decision: May 12, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against an interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a criminal writ petition.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (complainant) challenged an interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No.2 (an accused) seeking quashing of an FIR. The High Court, relying on the judgment in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, directed that the investigation may continue but the police report (chargesheet) under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) shall not be submitted to the Court till the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, holding that it was a blanket order affecting the statutory right of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file a report. The Court distinguished Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, which only dealt with the distinction between Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS after cognizance, and did not support restraining the filing of a chargesheet. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file the report. Further, noting multiple FIRs and repeated illegal sale of the society’s land, the Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Chief Secretary, UP, with the Registrar of Societies as a member, to conduct a fact‑finding enquiry into the alienation of the society’s properties.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

  • Case Title: Shrikant Ojha vs. State of UP & Ors.

  • Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3123 of 2026

  • Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari (Division Bench)

  • Date of Decision: May 12, 2026

  • Citation: 2026 INSC 482 (Non‑Reportable)

  • Appeal From: Interim order dated 06.02.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2026


2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved

  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 193(3) (filing of police report/chargesheet after completion of investigation)

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, etc. (offences alleged)

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 136 (special leave to appeal)

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 482 (inherent powers) – referred to for comparison with BNSS.

Key Precedents Cited

  1. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (not fully cited) – The High Court relied on this judgment. The Supreme Court distinguished it, clarifying that it dealt with the distinction between Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS after cognizance of the offence is taken, and did not authorise the restraint on filing a chargesheet.

  2. Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC (Cri) 1 – Held that a blanket interim order passed by the High Court affecting the powers of the investigating agency to investigate into cognizable offences is unsustainable, as it interferes with the statutory right/duty of the police under the CrPC.

  3. Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (not fully cited) – In land scam cases, the Court may appoint a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure an unobstructed investigation. The Court in that case directed constitution of an SIT to investigate fraudulent land transactions.

  4. Mohd. Imbrahim & Anr. v. State of Bihar (not fully cited) and Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & ors. (not fully cited) – The High Court had referred to these to suggest that civil disputes should not be criminalised. The Supreme Court did not discuss them in detail.

What the Judgment is About

The judgment addresses two main issues: (i) the propriety of a High Court order staying the filing of a chargesheet under Section 193(3) BNSS while permitting investigation to continue, pending a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR; and (ii) the need for a structured investigation (SIT) when there are multiple FIRs, civil suits, and allegations of systematic fraud and land grabbing involving a registered society’s properties. The Supreme Court holds that a blanket order restraining the submission of a police report is illegal and contrary to the law laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure. The Court also exercises its power to ensure a fair and thorough investigation by constituting an SIT.


3. Relevant Facts

  • The Society: Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for spiritual and social purposes. The society owns substantial freehold immovable properties.

  • Dispute: After the founder’s death, unauthorized groups began selling society lands using forged documents. Multiple civil suits and criminal FIRs have been filed across various states (Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh). Some FIRs are pending, and some accused have been granted bail.

  • Specific FIR: FIR No. 642 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (corresponding to IPC offences of cheating, forgery, etc.). The allegation is that G. Ram Chandramohan, Akash Malviya, and Pradip Singh used forged documents to sell society land to M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited. Respondent No. 2 (Raghvendra Pratap Singh) is a director of that company.

  • Respondent No.2’s writ petition: He filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. On 06.02.2026, the High Court passed an interim order directing that investigation may go on, but the police report under Section 193(3) BNSS shall not be submitted in Court till the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court relied on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni.

  • Appeal to Supreme Court: The complainant (Shrikant Ojha) challenged this interim order.

  • Other pending litigations: The report of the Registrar of Societies indicated a dispute between two groups over the management of the society. The matter was pending before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8525/2024.


4. Issues

  1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the police report (chargesheet) under Section 193(3) BNSS shall not be submitted to the Court till the pendency of the writ petition, while simultaneously permitting the investigation to continue.

  2. Whether such an interim order violates the statutory right of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file a report, as held in Neeharika Infrastructure.

  3. Whether, given the multiple FIRs, civil suits, and repeated illegal sale of the society’s land, this Court should constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a comprehensive fact‑finding enquiry.


5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Blanket order restraining filing of chargesheet – illegal (Paras 11, 14-16):

The Court held that the High Court’s direction restraining the submission of the police report under Section 193(3) BNSS was unsustainable. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court reiterated that such a blanket interim order affects the statutory right/duty of the investigating agency to investigate cognizable offences and to file a report. The High Court had not assigned any reasons for passing such an order, and the mere pendency of a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR does not justify staying the filing of the chargesheet, especially when the investigation itself was permitted to continue.

B. Distinction from Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (Para 15):

The Court distinguished the judgment relied upon by the High Court. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni dealt with the question whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after cognizance of the offence had been taken, or whether the remedy thereafter is only under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC). That judgment did not authorise the High Court to stay the filing of a chargesheet. The factual scenario was different, and the ratio did not support the impugned order.

C. Investigation and filing of chargesheet must proceed (Para 16):

The Court directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file the report under Section 193(3) BNSS in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2025.

D. Constitution of SIT (Paras 17-19):

Given that multiple FIRs had been registered, civil suits were pending, and the land of the society was being repeatedly sold by unauthorised persons using forged documents despite court orders, the Court invoked its power under Article 142 read with Article 136 to ensure an unimpaired and unobstructed investigation. Following the precedent in Pratibha Manchanda, the Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The SIT shall include the Registrar of Societies as a member to identify the lands belonging to the society. The SIT shall conduct a fact‑finding enquiry into the alienation of society lands, and submit a report within three months. Based on the report, concerned police stations may take cognizance if fraudulent acts are found.

E. Interim protection to respondent No.2 (Para 18):

Till the SIT submits its report and the investigation is completed, no coercive action shall be taken against respondent No.2. However, all accused persons shall cooperate with the SIT and the investigation.

F. Disapproval of friction within the society (Para 19):

The Court expressed concern that after the founder’s death, internal friction among groups has led to continuous illegal sale of properties, defeating the purpose of the society. The SIT was directed to take a holistic view and ensure that further acts of forgery and cheating are stopped.


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • A High Court cannot, while entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 for quashing of an FIR, issue an interim order that permits investigation to continue but restrains the filing of the chargesheet. Such an order is a “blanket order” that interferes with the statutory duty of the investigating agency under Section 193(3) BNSS and is illegal in light of Neeharika Infrastructure.

  • The judgment in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni does not authorise a stay on the filing of a chargesheet. It only clarifies the jurisdictional distinction between Article 226 (pre‑cognisance) and Section 528 BNSS (post‑cognisance) for the purpose of quashing proceedings.

  • In cases involving multiple FIRs, land grabbing, and systematic fraud using forged documents, the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a comprehensive fact‑finding enquiry, especially when the property belongs to a society and the management is in dispute. The SIT may include the Registrar of Societies to assist in identifying the society’s assets.


7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

The Court examined the interim order of the High Court and found it to be contradictory – it allowed investigation to go on but prevented the filing of the chargesheet. The Court noted that the purpose of investigation is to collect evidence and, if sufficient, to file a police report. Preventing the filing of the report while allowing investigation is illogical and leaves the proceedings in a limbo.

The Court then analysed Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni. In that case, the issue was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 after cognizance had been taken (which would be barred) or whether the petitioner should be relegated to Section 528 BNSS. The judgment clarified that if cognizance has not been taken, Article 226 can be invoked; if cognizance has been taken, the remedy is under Section 528 BNSS. There was no discussion or direction restraining the filing of a chargesheet. Therefore, the High Court’s reliance on that judgment was misplaced.

The Court then applied Neeharika Infrastructure, where a three‑Judge Bench held that blanket interim orders affecting the investigation are unsustainable. The High Court had not recorded any reasons for preventing the filing of the chargesheet. Thus, that part of the interim order was set aside.

On the larger issue of land grabbing, the Court noted that multiple FIRs had been registered across different states (Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh). Despite civil court decrees declaring the sale deeds void, unauthorised groups continued to sell the property. The Registrar of Societies’ report confirmed a dispute over management. The Court was of the opinion that a coordinated, high‑level investigation was necessary to stop the illegal alienation and protect the society’s assets. Hence, it constituted an SIT with the Registrar of Societies as a member.

The Court also observed that the society was meant for the benefit of the public, and its properties were being misappropriated by persons who had no lawful authority. The SIT was directed to identify all properties that had been illegally transferred and to submit a report to the High Court for further action.


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment firmly restates the law that interim orders in criminal writ petitions should not hamper the statutory process of investigation and filing of chargesheet. The distinction of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni is accurate and prevents the misuse of that judgment by accused persons to delay the submission of police reports. The constitution of an SIT is a pragmatic response to a complex, multi‑state land scam, ensuring a coordinated investigation. The inclusion of the Registrar of Societies is innovative and will help identify legitimate office‑bearers and society properties.

Potential concerns: The judgment directs that no coercive action shall be taken against respondent No.2 till the SIT report and investigation are completed, while also directing the I.O. to file the chargesheet. This may create a conflict – if the chargesheet is filed, the court may take cognizance and issue summons (coercive action). However, the High Court can stay the operation of the summons if it later quashes the FIR. The judgment does not explicitly say that the chargesheet, once filed, will not be acted upon – it only says no coercive action against respondent No.2 till the SIT report. This is a narrow protection.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by investigating agencies to resist interim orders that stay the filing of chargesheets while permitting investigation. It clarifies that such orders are illegal. It also provides a template for the Supreme Court to appoint SITs in complex land fraud cases involving multiple jurisdictions and multiple FIRs. The judgment will also be used by complainants in land grabbing cases to seek constitution of SITs for a thorough investigation.


9. Final Outcome

  • Criminal Appeal disposed of (the interim order of the High Court was modified/set aside in part).

  • The direction of the High Court restraining the submission of the police report under Section 193(3) BNSS is set aside.

  • The Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file the police report under Section 193(3) BNSS in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2025 (Police Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar).

  • A Special Investigation Team (SIT) is constituted under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The SIT shall include the Registrar of Societies as a member. It shall conduct a fact‑finding enquiry into the alienation/transfer of lands belonging to the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India and submit a report within three months.

  • Till the SIT submits its report and the investigation is completed, no coercive action shall be taken against respondent No.2, but all accused persons shall cooperate with the SIT and the investigation.

  • Pending application(s) disposed of.


10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

  • For complainants (victims of land fraud): If the accused files a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and obtains an interim order staying the filing of the chargesheet, you can cite this judgment to argue that such an order is illegal as per Neeharika Infrastructure. The High Court cannot restrain the submission of the police report while permitting investigation. You can also request the court to constitute an SIT if the land fraud involves multiple jurisdictions, multiple FIRs, and systematic forgery.

  • For accused persons: If you are seeking quashing of an FIR, do not ask for an order that restrains the filing of the chargesheet – such an order is unsustainable. Instead, seek a stay on the operation of the summons after the chargesheet is filed, or seek quashing at the cognisance stage under Section 528 BNSS / 482 CrPC. Also, be aware that in land grabbing cases, the court may suo motu order an SIT investigation even if you are not named in multiple FIRs.

  • For investigating agencies (police): If the High Court passes an order staying the filing of a chargesheet while permitting investigation, you can file a special leave petition and cite this judgment to have that part of the order set aside. Also, you can request the court to clarify that the stay on filing the chargesheet is illegal.


11.  Court Lines

“In our view, the Court can exercise the discretion for not taking coercive steps till the matter is pending but the direction not to file the charge sheet in reference of judgment in the case of Pradnya Pranjali Kulkarni (supra) is wholly unjust as the facts of the judgment … are completely on different footing.” (Para 15)

“From the reading of judgment of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra), we do not find any reason to direct stay on filing of the chargesheet under Section 193(3) of the BNSS. Therefore, such direction deserves to be set aside, and the Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file its report under section 193(3) of the BNSS.” (Para 16)

“Considering the fact that various FIR have been registered and the land belonging to society has been sold without the permission of the society frustrating the object and purpose of society, we feel it appropriate … to appoint an SIT for unimpaired and unobstructed investigation.” (Para 17)

“We deem it appropriate to direct under the supervision of Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh an SIT to be constituted wherein the Registrar of Societies shall be made one of its members who can disclose the lands belonging to the society concerned and thereafter it should be found out that how the lands belonging to the society have been alienated or transferred to any third party without the permission of the society.” (Para 18)


12. Legal Strategy Insight

  • For the complainant (victim of fraud): When the accused files a quashing petition, immediately file a counter‑affidavit and also request the court to not stay the investigation or the filing of the chargesheet. Cite Neeharika Infrastructure and this judgment. If the court nonetheless stays the filing of the chargesheet, approach the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. Also, if the fraud is widespread (multiple properties, multiple FIRs), move an application seeking constitution of an SIT, relying on Pratibha Manchanda and this judgment.

  • For the accused (respondent): If you are challenging the FIR, do not seek a stay on the filing of the chargesheet – it will be set aside. Instead, seek a stay on the operation of the summons after the chargesheet is filed, or seek quashing at the stage of cognisance under Section 528 BNSS. If the court grants an interim stay on coercive steps, ensure it does not extend to the filing of the chargesheet. Also, if the court orders an SIT, cooperate fully to avoid adverse inferences.

  • For the High Court: When an accused files a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an FIR, do not pass blanket orders restraining the filing of the chargesheet. You may permit investigation to continue and, if necessary, grant protection from arrest till the next date, but the investigating officer must be allowed to complete the investigation and file the report. After the chargesheet is filed, you may examine whether cognizance has been taken and then decide the maintainability of the writ petition (pre‑cognisance vs. post‑cognisance).

View full judgment (PDF)