Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Ratan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.') with the following relief(s):-

          "It is therefore most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and in exercise thereof be pleased to admit the petition, call for the records, and after hearing the parties in the matter, be further pleased to quash FIR No. 12/2016 registered at Police Station Maudahapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor's Interest Act., 2005 to the extent of the petitioner Narinder Singh Mehta, the same being an abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of the petitioner's fundamental and constitutional rights, in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that FIR No. 12/2016 dated 22.01.2016 came to be registered at Police Station Maudhapara, Raipur for offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC as well as Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, in relation to the affairs of M/s PACL Limited. The prosecution case is that the company, through its directors and agents, collected huge amounts from investors by promising allotment of land and attractive returns, but failed to honour its commitments, thereby causing loss to thousands of investors. After investigation, Chargesheet No. 58/2021 dated 17.09.2021 was filed against certain directors and office- bearers of the company and the matter is presently pending as Special Sessions Case No. 4/2021 before the Special Judge under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, Raipur.

4. The petitioner, a retired Deputy Commandant of the Border Security Force, asserts that he was never named either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet and had no connection whatsoever with the affairs of PACL during the period when the alleged deposits were collected. According to the petitioner, he was appointed only on 08.02.2016 as an Independent Director, after the passing of regulatory and judicial orders against PACL and after constitution of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for refund of investors' money. It is his case that his role was confined to assisting the Lodha Committee and complying with judicial directions, and that he neither participated in the alleged transactions nor dealt with any investor. Apprehending arrest and possible implication through a supplementary charge-sheet in connection with FIR No. 12/2016, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking protection and appropriate relief from this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely sought to be implicated in connection with FIR No. 12/2016 despite the fact that he is neither named in the FIR nor in charge-sheet No. 58/2021 filed after more than five years of investigation. It is contended that two independent investigating agencies, namely the Central Bureau of Investigation and the local police authorities, have thoroughly investigated the affairs of PACL Limited and neither agency found any material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. There is not a single allegation against the petitioner of inducing any investor, collecting any money, making any false promise or participating in the affairs of the company during the period when the alleged deposits were mobilized. The petitioner joined PACL Limited only on 08.02.2016 as an Independent Director, long after the alleged transactions had taken place and after the company had already come under the scrutiny of SEBI, SAT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, a retired Deputy Commandant of the Border Security Force with an unblemished service record, was appointed only to assist in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee constituted for refund of investors' money. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, in its order dated 11.08.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 10274/2025, has recorded that the petitioner's role in PACL Limited was merely to assist the Lodha Committee. In the absence of any specific allegation or material demonstrating his active involvement in the alleged offences, no vicarious criminal liability can be fastened upon him merely because he subsequently became one of the Directors of the company.

7. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Bora and another, (2009) 10 SCC 48, Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1 and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, to contend that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in the absence of specific allegations constituting the ingredients of the alleged offences.

8. It is lastly submitted that as many as 19 FIRs have been registered in different districts in relation to the affairs of PACL Limited and the petitioner has already been granted bail in 16 such cases. At present, the petitioner is lodged in Ratanpur Jail in connection with an FIR registered at Bilaspur. It is contended that any further coercive action or implication of the petitioner through a supplementary charge- sheet in the present FIR would amount to gross abuse of the process of law and infringement of his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to exercise its extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction to protect the petitioner from unwarranted prosecution and consequential coercive action in connection with FIR No. 12/2016.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 4, opposes the petition and submits that the investigation has revealed a large-scale financial fraud involving PACL Limited, wherein thousands of investors were allegedly cheated of substantial amounts. It is contended that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the company and the investigation in relation to his role is still under consideration. Therefore, at this stage, no blanket protection or interference is warranted in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the allegations involve serious economic offences affecting a large number of depositors and require thorough investigation. It is argued that the questions regarding the petitioner's role, extent of involvement and liability are matters to be examined on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

11. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking quashment of FIR No. 12/2016 registered at Police Station Maudhapara, District Raipur, and consequential protection against any future implication of the petitioner in connection therewith. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he is neither named in the FIR nor in charge-sheet No. 58/2021, that he joined M/s PACL Limited only on 08.02.2016 as an Independent Director after the alleged transactions had already taken place, and that his role was confined to assisting the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has also been urged that no specific allegation has been levelled against him and, therefore, any future implication or coercive action would amount to abuse of the process of law.

12. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the relief sought by the petitioner is not directed against any existing criminal proceeding pending against him in the present FIR. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet filed till date. What is essentially sought is a pre-emptive declaration that no future action be taken against him and that the FIR itself be quashed to the extent of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the investigating agency has not yet arrayed him as an accused. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is undoubtedly wide; however, such jurisdiction is intended to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice in respect of existing proceedings and cannot ordinarily be exercised on mere apprehensions or speculative possibilities.

13. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the allegations relate to a large-scale economic offence involving M/s PACL Limited, wherein thousands of investors are alleged to have been induced to invest substantial amounts on the promise of allotment of land and attractive returns. The allegations disclose commission of serious offences involving public funds and affecting a large number of depositors. The magnitude and complexity of the allegations cannot be ignored while considering the scope of interference under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that economic offences constitute a class apart and ordinarily require a thorough and comprehensive investigation, particularly where the allegations involve a large number of victims and extensive financial transactions.

14. It is true that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that his name does not find place in charge-sheet No. 58/2021. However, it is equally well settled that mere non-mention of a person's name in the FIR does not by itself confer immunity from investigation or future prosecution if material subsequently emerges connecting such person with the commission of the alleged offences. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and all persons involved. The investigating agency is empowered to collect material during investigation and proceed against any person whose complicity is disclosed by the evidence gathered. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner is not presently named in the FIR or the charge-sheet cannot furnish a valid ground for issuance of a blanket order foreclosing any future course of investigation.

15. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the nature of his appointment, the date of his induction as an Independent Director, the extent of his responsibilities, the significance of the orders passed by SEBI, SAT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the effect of the observations made in SLP (Crl.) No. 10274/2025 are all matters which pertain to the petitioner's defence and the extent of his involvement, if any, in the affairs of the company. These are essentially factual aspects requiring examination on the basis of evidence and material that may be collected during investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of such disputed factual issues while exercising inherent jurisdiction.

16. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in K.K. Ahuja (supra), Pooja Ravinder Devidasani (supra) and Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra) undoubtedly lay down the principle that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a director merely by virtue of his designation and that specific allegations demonstrating active role and involvement are necessary. However, the applicability of those principles would necessarily depend upon the factual foundation and material available in a given case. In the absence of any final decision by the investigating agency qua the petitioner in the present FIR, this Court would be entering into the realm of conjecture if it were to record findings conclusively determining the petitioner's liability or otherwise.

17. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the petitioner seeks protection primarily on the basis of an apprehension that he may be arrested or implicated through a supplementary charge-sheet in future. The jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. cannot be invoked to grant anticipatory declarations against a possible future course of investigation. The law provides adequate remedies to an aggrieved person if and when any coercive action is taken or if any supplementary charge-sheet is filed against him. Such remedies cannot be bypassed by seeking a blanket interdiction of the investigative process at a stage when no such action has yet been taken in the present case.

18. Moreover, the materials brought on record indicate that multiple criminal cases have been registered in different districts concerning the affairs of PACL Limited. The petitioner himself admits that as many as 19 FIRs have been registered and that he has been granted bail in 16 such cases, while he is presently in judicial custody in connection with another FIR registered at Bilaspur. These facts by themselves demonstrate that the issues arising out of the affairs of the company are subject matter of investigation and adjudication before competent courts in various proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court would be slow in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to render findings which may have a bearing upon investigations or proceedings pending elsewhere.

19. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the considered view that no exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The petitioner seeks quashment of the FIR and protection against a possible future implication despite the fact that he is not presently an accused in the case. Granting such relief would amount to stifling the statutory powers of investigation and issuing a blanket protection on the basis of mere apprehension, which is impermissible in law. The contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage, if occasion so arises.

20. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

21. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are confined to adjudication of the present petition alone and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of any investigation, supplementary charge-sheet or other proceeding, if initiated in accordance with law against the petitioner in future.

22. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.