Court Denies Quashing FIR, Emphasizing the Need for Thorough Investigation into Allegations of Fund Diversion and Misappropriation
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petitions seeking quashing of an FIR against film producer Vikram Praveen Bhatt and others, accused of siphoning and misappropriating funds intended for film production. The court emphasized the necessity of a full-fledged investigation into the allegations of dishonest diversion of funds amounting to Rs. 2.5 crore from a total of Rs. 47 crore.
The petitions were filed by Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava and others, challenging FIR No. 213/2025 registered at Bhupalpura Police Station, Udaipur, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners argued that the FIR was based on a purely contractual dispute and should be quashed.
However, Justice Sameer Jain, presiding over the case, found that the FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offences involving dishonest intent and fund misappropriation, thereby warranting a detailed investigation. The court noted that the allegations could not be dismissed as a mere breach of contract at this preliminary stage.
The judgment outlined that a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and the material on record suggested diversion of funds through intermediary accounts and inflated invoices. The court also observed that the agreements between the parties included a clause conferring jurisdiction upon the courts in Mumbai, but noted that an additional agreement was executed, altering the jurisdiction to Udaipur.
Justice Jain further highlighted that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is not intended to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence's probative value at this stage. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's principle that quashing an FIR at the threshold is an exception and not the rule, especially when the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, allowing the investigation to proceed unhindered, and vacated any interim protections granted. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to allowing due process and thorough investigation in cases involving serious allegations of financial misconduct.
Bottom Line:
Allegations of siphoning, diversion, and dishonest misappropriation of entrusted funds cannot be reduced to a mere breach of contract and require full-fledged investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 528, 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)
Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833293
