[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Pawan Kumar Agrawal on 5 August, 2025
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. OF 2025]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 26669 OF 2020]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION APPELLANT
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Lest any observation made by us prejudices the respondent no.1 and
having regard to the order proposed to be passed, we refrain from narrating the
facts in any great detail.
4. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur by the common impugned
judgment and order dated 26th September, 2019 has allowed a writ petition 1
and a quashing petition2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19733 filed by the respondent no.1 – Pawan Kumar Agrawal and thereby,
quashed the criminal proceedings instituted against him by the Central Bureau
of Investigation4 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and
477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No. RC/1242010A0009 of 2012.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.08.08
15:36:40 IST
Reason:
1
WPCR No. 201 of 2017
2
CRMP No. 587 of 2013
3
Cr. PC
4
CBI
2
Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 at
some length.
6. The case of the CBI was that the respondent no.1 conspired with the
manager of a bank to save his brother from being prosecuted for a crime. In the
process, there was forgery and/or fabrication of documents. A locker had been
hired by the brother of the respondent no.1. However, allegedly, the respondent
no.1 acting in concert with the manager had the locker hirer’s name altered
with an ante-dated application to project that it was not the brother of the
respondent no.1 but he who was the hirer of the locker at the material time.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, we find the same to be so cryptic that
the same cannot be sustained. The High Court does not appear to have dealt
with the documents forming part of the charge-sheet before it returned the
finding that no case for subjecting the respondent no.1 to stand trial is made
out.
8. We are satisfied that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the
order impugned is set aside and both the writ petition as well as the petition
under Section 482, Cr. PC are reconsidered by the High Court. It is ordered
accordingly.
9. The petitions filed by the respondent no.1 stand restored on the file of the
High Court.
10. Given the lapse of time since registration of the crime, we request the
High Court, subject to its convenience, to decide the petitions as early as
possible.
3
11. All points on merit are kept open.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
……….….………………………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
………….………………………….J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
New Delhi;
August 05, 2025.
4
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 26669/2020
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-09-2019
in CRMP No. 587/2013 26-09-2019 in WPCR No. 201/2017 passed by the
High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.135113/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING
Date : 05-08-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Divyansh H. Rathi, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma -b, Adv.
Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.
Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pushkar Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Vidula Mehrotra, AOR
Mr. Chirag Madan, Adv.
Mr. Utsav Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kartikey Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ronit Bose, Adv.
Mrs. Alekhya Shastry, Adv.
Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Adv.
Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv.
Mr. Kapil Katare, Adv.
Mrs. Rajnandani Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
5
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order placed on the file.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_2]
Source link