Mrs. Shweta Chouksey vs. Economic Offence Wing

Held

The Court held that the FIR could not be quashed at this stage. It reasoned that the investigation was in its primary phase and the allegations of financial embezzlement were supported by audit reports, which required detailed inquiry by the EOW. The Court distinguished the ongoing Supreme Court case, stating it pertained to election disputes and membership eligibility, not financial irregularities. Therefore, the pendency of the Supreme Court matter did not preclude the EOW from investigating the criminal complaint. The Court also noted that the petitioners had a remedy of applying for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.

Facts

The petitioners, office bearers of Astha Society, a private educational institution, sought to quash an FIR registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) concerning alleged misappropriation of funds. The dispute arose from internal management elections, with a former member contending that elections should be based on a 2016 member list. This led to a protracted legal battle involving multiple High Court and Supreme Court proceedings concerning election validity and account operations. The FIR was registered based on audit reports obtained by respondents, which the petitioners claim were ex-parte. The Supreme Court had previously set aside an order that had set aside the election of the current management (Chouksey Group) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on membership eligibility, while also directing the constitution of an ad-hoc committee. A subsequent SLP concerning financial decisions by the newly elected group was filed, where the Supreme Court declined to pass interim orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) for alleged misappropriation of funds by the petitioners, office bearers of Astha Society, is liable to be quashed, considering the ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court regarding the management and elections of the Society? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the FIR was based on ex-parte audit reports obtained without providing them an opportunity to be heard. They contended that the ongoing Supreme Court litigation pertains to the management and elections of the Society and should not be the basis for criminal proceedings. They also argued that the FIR was an abuse of process given the pending adjudication of management disputes. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, including the EOW, argued that the audit reports indicated financial irregularities and embezzlement, necessitating a detailed inquiry by the EOW. They contended that the Supreme Court case dealt with election disputes, not financial irregularities, and therefore, the FIR was maintainable. They relied on the principle that FIRs should not be quashed at the primary stage of investigation if cognizable offenses are disclosed.