BNSS Section 193(3) | Charge-Sheet Mandatory Despite Civil Dispute Over Society Land Fraud: SC Overrules High Court Stay

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the filing of a charge-sheet under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be obstructed merely because a civil dispute coexists with allegations of fraud and forgery in the sale of society property. In a significant intervention, the Court directed the completion of investigation and mandated the submission of the charge-sheet, while also constituting a Special Investigation Team to prevent further alienation of valuable assets belonging to a registered society.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India ("Society"), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Registration No. S-2366 of 1963), holds freehold immovable properties across multiple states, including Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. The Society was established under the spiritual guidance of His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for public benefit. After his demise, internal disputes emerged between two factions claiming authority over the Society’s management, leading to unauthorized sale of its properties by individuals purporting to act as office bearers.

Key Facts

• The Society’s properties were fraudulently sold by G. Ram Chandramohan and others using forged documents, including power of attorney and sale deeds.
• FIRs were registered across multiple jurisdictions:
  • FIR No. 328/2011 at PS Takhtpur, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC
  • FIR No. 486/2014 at PS City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) under similar IPC provisions
  • FIR No. 294/2023 at PS Noida Sector 39 (UP) under Sections 420, 467, 511 IPC
  • FIR No. 152/2025 at PS Noida Sector 39 (UP)
  • FIR No. 642/2025 at PS Noida Sector 39 (UP) under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS - the subject of this appeal
• Respondent No. 2 (Raghvendra Pratap Singh) and Akash Malviya are directors of M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited, the alleged purchaser of Society land through forged instruments.
• Civil suits were filed in Bilaspur (2011), Saket (2011), and Delhi (2024) seeking declaration of sale deeds as void and injunction against further alienation.
• The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to G. Ram Chandramohan in connection with FIRs 328/2011 and 468/2014; Society’s bail cancellation petitions remain pending.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a quashing petition against FIR No. 20/2024 (Bargi).
• The Office of the Registrar of Societies confirmed in its affidavit that two competing groups claim management control, each with separate lists of office bearers.
• The Delhi High Court is hearing W.P.(C) No. 8525/2024 on the Society’s management dispute.

Procedural History

• 07.07.2012: Police complaint filed at PS Madhu Vihar, Delhi
• 20.12.2011: Ex-parte injunction granted by District Court, Bilaspur in CS (OS) No. 3221/2011
• 22.11.2014: FIR No. 486/2014 registered at PS City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar
• 20.10.2023: FIR No. 259/2023 registered at PS Sunera, Shajapur
• 11.01.2024: FIR No. 20/2024 registered at PS Bargi, Jabalpur
• 20.12.2024: FIR No. 68/2024 registered at PS Shajapur
• 20.12.2025: FIR No. 642/2025 registered at PS Noida Sector 39
• 06.02.2026: Allahabad High Court passed interim order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1718/2026:
  • Allowed investigation to continue
  • Directed that charge-sheet under Section 193(3) of BNSS shall not be filed until disposal of writ petition
  • Relied on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra
• 2026: Appeal filed before Supreme Court challenging the above interim order

Relief Sought

The appellant (complainant) sought:

• Setting aside of the Allahabad High Court’s interim order dated 06.02.2026
• Direction to the Investigating Officer to file the charge-sheet under Section 193(3) of BNSS
• Constitution of a Special Investigation Team to oversee investigation into fraudulent alienation of Society property
• Prevention of further unauthorized sales pending investigation

The Legal Issue

Can the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, restrain the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, merely because a civil dispute exists over ownership of property, even when multiple FIRs allege repeated fraud and forgery?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant contended that:

• The Society’s properties are freehold and not government-leased, as erroneously assumed by the High Court.
• Multiple FIRs across states demonstrate a pattern of organized fraud, not isolated civil disputes.
• The High Court’s reliance on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni was misplaced, as that case involved a single FIR and no evidence of systemic fraud.
• The blanket restraint on filing the charge-sheet violates the statutory duty of the police under BNSS and CrPC to investigate cognizable offences.
• The delay in filing the charge-sheet enables further alienation of property and undermines public trust.
• The Court must act under its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and protect public interest.

For the Respondent

The respondents argued that:

• The matter is primarily a civil dispute over management rights and ownership of property.
• Criminal proceedings are being misused to gain advantage in pending civil litigation.
• The High Court’s order was a prudent interim measure to prevent harassment and multiplicity of proceedings.
• The existence of civil suits and pending management disputes justifies restraint on coercive steps.
• The charge-sheet should be stayed until the civil court determines rightful ownership.

The Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the interplay between civil disputes and criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of repeated fraudulent alienation of property. The Court emphasized that the existence of a civil dispute does not negate the possibility of criminal conduct, especially where forged documents are used to transfer property.

"The High Court’s direction to refrain from filing the charge-sheet under Section 193(3) of the BNSS is wholly unjustified, as the facts of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni are entirely different and do not support such a blanket restraint."

The Court distinguished Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, noting that in that case, the FIR was challenged after cognizance was taken, and the Court clarified that Article 226 jurisdiction is not available once cognizance is taken - but remains available before cognizance. However, the Court held that even before cognizance, the police’s statutory duty to complete investigation and file a charge-sheet cannot be suspended merely because a civil suit is pending.

The Court further relied on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, observing that blanket orders restraining investigation without reasons are unsustainable and infringe upon the statutory rights of investigating agencies. The High Court’s order was criticized for being cryptic, unreasoned, and obstructive to the investigation process.

The Court then turned to the broader public interest: the repeated sale of Society property by unauthorized persons, the registration of multiple FIRs across states, and the failure of local authorities to prevent further fraud. Citing Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., the Court recognized the systemic nature of land scams and the need for an unimpaired investigation.

"Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership..."

The Court concluded that the situation warranted the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a comprehensive, impartial, and unobstructed investigation into the entire chain of fraudulent transactions, including the role of third-party purchasers and officials involved in registration.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The interim order of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.02.2026 restraining the filing of the charge-sheet under Section 193(3) of the BNSS is set aside. The Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet in connection with FIR No. 642/2025 at PS Noida Sector 39 within 30 days. A Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and including a representative of the Registrar of Societies, shall be constituted under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The SIT shall complete its fact-finding enquiry within three months, submit a report to the concerned police station, and make it available to the Delhi High Court for its pending proceedings. No coercive action shall be taken against Respondent No. 2 until the SIT report is submitted, but all accused persons shall cooperate fully with the investigation.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Stalled by Civil Disputes Alone

• Practitioners must argue that the existence of a civil suit does not automatically render criminal allegations non-cognizable.
• Repeated fraudulent transactions using forged documents constitute a continuing criminal offense, irrespective of pending civil ownership disputes.
• Courts must distinguish between genuine civil disputes and criminal fraud - the latter demands immediate investigation.

SIT as a Tool Against Organized Land Fraud

• The Pratibha Manchanda precedent now applies beyond Haryana: SITs can be ordered in any case involving multi-state land scams, especially where society or trust property is involved.
• SITs must include regulatory authorities (e.g., Registrar of Societies, Sub-Registrar) to access official records and verify authenticity of documents.
• Custodial interrogation of vendees and officials is permissible under law if necessary to establish mens rea.

Charge-Sheet Filing Is Non-Discretionary

• Police cannot be restrained from filing charge-sheets under BNSS Section 193(3) merely on the basis of a writ petition challenging the FIR.
• The High Court’s power under Article 226 does not extend to suspending statutory duties of investigation.
• Any stay on charge-sheet filing must be accompanied by reasoned, case-specific justification - not blanket injunctions.