Nidhi Nehra Sharma vs. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case requiring detailed investigation into the alleged diversion of funds, the role of interconnected companies, the procurement and supply of equipment, the purported fabricated work order, and electronic communications. The petitioners' explanations were considered matters of defence not conclusively adjudicable at the anticipatory bail stage. The Court found that the petitioners had not been falsely implicated and the allegations were not frivolous or groundless. It noted that while the petitioners had joined the investigation, their cooperation was not complete as material questions remained unanswered regarding the source of goods and movement of funds. Citing P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, the Court emphasized that economic offences constitute a separate class and custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded that the petitioners' custodial interrogation was wholly unwarranted and declined to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC in their favour. The Court explicitly stated that nothing in its order should be construed as an expression on the merits of the case at trial.

Facts

The petitioners, Pankaj Sharma and Nidhi Nehra Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 237/2024, registered for offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that after facilitating a settlement between the complainant and another party regarding a company, the petitioners introduced co-accused to handle accounts and IT work. Approximately Rs. 68,10,417/- was transferred to certain companies at the petitioners' instance, and an additional Rs. 1,30,80,000/- was allegedly received by the petitioners with assurances of repayment, but was instead diverted for personal benefit. The prosecution also alleged a forged work order from NBCC was shown to the complainant. The FIR was registered based on a trial court order under Section 156(3) CrPC after earlier anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioners, considering their submissions of false implication and genuine commercial transactions given a criminal colour? (Section 438 CrPC). The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated in a commercial dispute, had joined the investigation on approximately 30 occasions, supplied documents including GST records, and that custodial interrogation was not warranted as no recovery was left. They also contended that bank statements and ledger accounts showed payments towards company liabilities and that GST input credits availed by the complainant's company supported the factum of supply. The State argued that the petitioners' explanations regarding fund diversion, procurement of goods, and the forged work order required further investigation, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for tracing the money trail and collecting concealed material, citing Supreme Court precedents on economic offences and anticipatory bail.