1

CGHC010303242026 2026:CGHC:35180-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPCR No. 460 of 2026

1 - Rekha Neware W/o Sh. Ramdayal Neware Aged About 48 Years R/o

Ward No. 10, Gram Tirodi, Vtc Kharpadiya, Po Tirodi, Sub District

Katangi, Distt. Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh 481449.

2 - Nilesh Keshorao Gajbhiye S/o Sh. Keshorao Gajbhiye Aged About

41 Years R/o New Shastri Ward, Near Yashoda Sabhgruh, Vtc Gondiya,

Po Gondia, Sub District Gondiya, Distt. Gondiya, Maharashtra 441601.

3 - Panchu Lal Pandhre S/o Sh. Moti Ram Pandhre Aged About 39

Years R/o Village Jamdi, P.S. Kasauli, Distt. Gondiya, Maharashtra.

4 - Buddhadas Premdas Ramtake S/o Sh. Premdas Ramtake Aged

About 46 Years R/o Dhwani Apartment Sister Colony Naginabag,

Chandrapur, Distt. Chandrapur, Maharashtra.

... Petitioners

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home

Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Registrar of Companies Ashok Pingley Bhawan, 1st Floor,

Municipal Corporation, Nehru Chowk, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh.

3 - Securities And Exchange Board of India Through The Chairman, Plot

No. C4-A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai

400051, Maharashtra.

4 - Ministry of Corporate Affairs Through The Principal Secretary,

Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

2

5 - Kamlesh Verma S/o Paltan Ram Verma Resident of House No. 2,

Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Dongargaon Road, Phase 1, Ward No. 45,

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

6 - Udaksha Kumar Verma S/o Bhaiya Ji Verma R/o Qr. Near Hanuman

Mandir, Ward Jiratola, Rajnandgaon, C.G., Presently At House No. 2,

Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Dongargaon Road, Phase-1, Ward No. 45, P.S.

Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

7 - Ved Prakash Verma S/o Chaturbhuj Verma R/o Village Chaweli, Post

Kaprikhurd, P.S. Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners :Mr. Shivanand Mishra, Advocate

(through Video Conferening) assisted by

Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate

For State :Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional

Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

11.08.2026

1.Heard Mr. Shivanand Mishra, learned counsel (through Video

Conferening) assisted by Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur,

learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State.

2.The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for following relief(s):-

“1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

in the nature of Certiorari quashing Complaint

Case No. 56/2016 under Section 220 of the

3

Companies Act, 1956, Complaint Case No.

57/2016 under Section 159 of the Companies

Act, 1956, Complaint Case No. 02/2018 under

Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013,

Complaint Case No. 27/2022 under Section

207(4) of the Companies Act, and Complaint

Case No. 50/2024 under Section 454(8) of the

Companies Act, 2013, along with all

consequential proceedings, cognizance orders,

summons, warrants and coercive actions

pending before the Court of Learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,

against the Petitioners, in the interest of justice.

2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

quashing FIR No. 75/2016 dated 10.11.2016

registered at Police Station Bhoramdev, District

Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) for offences under

Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC, Sections 3, 4

and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10

of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors

Interest Act, 2005, qua the present Petitioners,

as the continuation of criminal proceedings

against innocent commission-based agents

amounts to gross abuse of process of law and

violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

quashing and setting aside Recovery Order No.

RO/214/2022 arising out of Recovery

Certificate No. 997/2016 dated 28.01.2022

issued by SEBI against the Petitioners, being

4

arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and passed

without determining the actual role, financial

benefit, control, or management authority of the

Petitioners.

4. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

declaring that the Petitioners were never

"Officers in Default" within the meaning of

Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956 and

were never persons "in charge of and

responsible for the conduct of business" of M/s

Vee Realties India Limited, and therefore

cannot be subjected to vicarious criminal or

statutory liability merely on the basis of

manipulated MCA records.

5. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

directing Respondent Authorities including

Registrar of Companies, SEBI and State

Investigating Agencies to immediately remove

and rectify the names of the Petitioners from

records showing them as Directors of M/s Vee

Realties India Limited, after conducting proper

forensic and legal verification in accordance

with law.

6. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

directing constitution of an independent Special

Investigation Team (SIT) or transfer

investigation to an independent specialized

agency for conducting comprehensive,

scientific and time-bound investigation into the

affairs of M/s Vee Realties India Limited and its

interconnected entities namely Vee Real

Entertainment House Private Limited, Vee

5

Insurance Agency Private Limited and Vee

Agro Farming & Dairies Private Limited.

7. Direct the Investigating Agency to conduct

forensic examination of all statutory filings, DIR

forms, consent letters, digital signatures,

handwriting samples, MCA uploads, Board

Resolutions, ROC records, IP logs, email trails

and related documents to ascertain fraudulent

appointment and impersonation of the

Petitioners as Directors.

8. Direct Respondent Authorities to investigate

the role of Mr. Kamlesh Verma, Udaksh Kumar

Verma, Ved Prakash Verma, Ganesh Ram

Verma and other associates for offences

punishable under Sections 316, 318, 319, 336,

337, 338, 340 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 447, 448 and 449

of the Companies Act, 2013 for fraud,

fabrication, false evidence, impersonation,

conspiracy, and manipulation of statutory

records.

9. Direct the competent authorities to

investigate the false affidavits, misleading

statements and concealment of material facts

made before various Courts, SEBI and the

Securities Appellate Tribunal by the actual

masterminds while obtaining favourable orders

and reliefs.

10. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

directing attachment, freezing and preservation

of movable and immovable properties, bank

accounts, investments, luxury assets and

6

interlinked business interests of Mr. Kamlesh

Verma and his associates pending

investigation, including properties acquired

through sale deeds executed on behalf of M/s

Vee Realties India Limited even after alleged

resignation.

11. Pass any other order, writ or direction which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and

necessary in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case for securing

ends of justice, protecting constitutional rights

of the Petitioners and restoring faith in the rule

of law.”

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the criminal

proceedings and other consequential proceedings merely on the

basis of their names having been reflected as Directors in the

records of the Company, whereas, in fact, they were only

commission-based field marketing agents and had never

exercised any managerial, administrative or financial control over

the affairs of Vee Realties India Limited. It is submitted that the

petitioners neither participated in any Board meeting nor operated

any bank account, signed any statutory document, filed any

return, held any shareholding or derived any financial benefit from

the affairs of the Company, except the limited commission

received for their field-level marketing activities.

4.Learned counsel further submits that the actual affairs and

7

financial operations of the Company were controlled by

respondent No.5-Kamlesh Verma and his close associates, who

continued to deal with the Company's bank accounts, properties

and financial transactions even after their alleged resignation from

the directorship. Reliance is placed upon the cheque issued by

respondent No.5 in the year 2019 and the registered sale deeds

executed by him in the years 2024, representing himself as

Director of the Company, to contend that these documents prima

facie establish that he continued to exercise effective control over

the Company. It is submitted that despite availability of such

material, the investigating and statutory authorities have failed to

examine the actual beneficiaries and controlling persons and have

mechanically proceeded against the present petitioners.

5.It is next submitted that the complaints and criminal proceedings

initiated against the petitioners do not contain any specific

allegation or material demonstrating that they were in charge of,

or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the Company.

There is no allegation that the petitioners signed any balance

sheet, annual return, statutory filing or Board resolution, operated

any bank account or participated in the management of the

Company. Mere reflection of their names as Directors in the MCA

records, particularly when the petitioners dispute their

appointment and allege that their signatures and identity

documents were misused, cannot by itself fasten criminal liability

upon them. He further submits that the petitioners have placed

8

substantial documentary material demonstrating the alleged

misuse of their identities and the continued control exercised by

respondent No.5 and his associates, yet no effective or fair

investigation has been undertaken.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions,

places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015)

4 SCC 609, wherein it has been held that criminal liability cannot

be fastened upon a Director merely by virtue of his designation

and that, in the absence of a specific act attributable to such

person coupled with the requisite criminal intent, individual

criminal liability cannot ordinarily be imposed. Learned counsel

submits that in the present case there is no specific allegation that

any of the petitioners participated in the management or conduct

of the business of the Company or committed any particular act

constituting the alleged offences.

7.Reliance is also placed upon S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.

Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89, to contend that a bald or

mechanical assertion that an accused was a Director or was

responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company is not

sufficient to attract criminal liability. It is necessary to disclose the

specific role and responsibility of the person concerned. According

to learned counsel, the complaints against the petitioners contain

no such specific averment and merely proceed on the basis of

9

their alleged designation in the MCA records, despite the

petitioners' categorical case that they never accepted or exercised

the office of Director.

8.Learned counsel further places reliance upon Harshendra

Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley, (2011) 3 SCC 351, submitting that

where unimpeachable documentary material placed before the

Court demonstrates that continuation of criminal proceedings

would amount to abuse of the process of law, the High Court is

not precluded from examining such material while exercising its

jurisdiction to prevent injustice. It is submitted that in the present

case, the cheque issued by respondent No.5 in 2019 and the

registered sale deeds executed by him in 2024, representing

himself as Director of the Company, constitute significant

documentary material demonstrating his continued control over

the affairs and assets of the Company.

9.Learned counsel also relies upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan

Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submits that the present case

falls within the well-recognised categories warranting interference

by the High Court, particularly where the allegations, even if taken

at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence

by the accused and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fides or amounts to abuse of the process of

law. It is contended that the petitioners have been prosecuted

merely because their names were reflected in the MCA records,

10

without any investigation into their actual role, financial control,

beneficial interest or participation in the affairs of the Company.

10.Learned counsel further places reliance upon Pepsi Foods Ltd.

v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, to submit that

issuance of process against a person has serious consequences

and cannot be undertaken mechanically. According to learned

counsel, the learned Magistrate failed to apply the requisite

judicial mind to the absence of any specific material connecting

the petitioners with the alleged offences and mechanically

proceeded against them on the basis of their alleged directorship.

It is, therefore, submitted that permitting the criminal proceedings

to continue against the petitioners, in the face of the aforesaid

legal position and the documentary material placed on record,

would result in grave injustice and abuse of the process of law.

11.Learned counsel, therefore, submits that even if the allegations

contained in the impugned proceedings are taken at their face

value, the essential ingredients of the offences are not made out

against the petitioners. The continuation of the criminal

proceedings, ROC complaints and consequential coercive

proceedings against persons who were neither in control of nor

beneficiaries of the Company's affairs would cause grave

prejudice and irreparable injury to them and accordingly prays for

quashment of the impugned proceedings, including order framing

charges and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioners.

11

12.On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the State, while opposing the petition, submits that

the present writ petition, as framed, seeks a multitude of reliefs

arising out of distinct proceedings initiated by different statutory

and investigating authorities and pending before different forums.

It is submitted that the petitioners have sought, in a single

proceeding, quashing of several complaint cases under different

provisions of the Companies Act, quashing of an FIR registered

for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and

Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, as well as the

Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, challenge to

the recovery proceedings initiated by SEBI, a declaration

regarding their status as "Officers in Default", rectification of MCA

records, constitution of an SIT or transfer of investigation to an

independent agency, forensic investigation of corporate records,

investigation against private individuals for alleged offences under

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Companies Act, and even

directions for attachment and freezing of the properties and bank

accounts of private respondents. Such omnibus and composite

reliefs, involving separate causes of action, different statutory

regimes, different authorities and proceedings at different stages,

cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present petition in the

manner sought by the petitioners.

13.Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the

petitioners have not challenged the individual orders, cognizance

12

orders or proceedings in a specific and properly constituted

manner so as to enable the State authorities and the concerned

private respondents to effectively meet each of the challenges. It

is contended that the prayer for quashing of five distinct complaint

cases pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the

prayer for quashing of the FIR, the challenge to the SEBI recovery

order, and the prayers seeking investigation, forensic examination

and action against private persons stand on entirely different legal

and factual foundations. Each such proceeding would require

examination of its own pleadings, statutory provisions, evidence,

stage of proceedings and orders passed by the competent

authority/forum. A sweeping prayer seeking adjudication of all

such issues in one writ petition would, therefore, lead to serious

procedural and jurisdictional complications and would also

prejudice the rights of the respective authorities and affected

parties.

14.It is, therefore, submitted that if the petitioners are genuinely

aggrieved by any particular complaint case, cognizance order,

recovery order or other specific proceeding, they ought to assail

the same by filing an appropriately constituted petition, specifically

identifying the impugned order/proceeding, the statutory provision

involved and the relief sought in respect thereof. Similarly, any

grievance relating to rectification of MCA records, SEBI

proceedings or the manner of investigation may be pursued

before the competent statutory forum in accordance with law.

13

Learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, submits that the

present petition, in its existing omnibus form, is not maintainable

and deserves to be dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners, if

so advised, to avail the appropriate remedy by filing separate and

properly constituted proceedings in respect of their distinct

grievances.

15.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as

well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

State and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and

other material placed on record. We have also considered the

nature of the reliefs sought by the petitioners and the objections

raised by the learned State counsel with regard to the

maintainability and proper constitution of the present petition.

16.At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the present petition,

though styled as a petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction

of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India, seeks determination of a large number of issues arising

from proceedings initiated under distinct statutory enactments,

before different authorities and at different stages. The petitioners

have simultaneously sought quashing of as many as five separate

complaint cases pending before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bilaspur, arising under different provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Act, 2013; quashing of

FIR No.75/2016 registered at Police Station Bhoramdev, District

14

Kabirdham for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Prize

Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and

the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005;

quashing of the SEBI Recovery Order No.RO/214/2022 arising

out of Recovery Certificate No.997/2016; a declaration regarding

the status of the petitioners as "Officers in Default"; rectification of

the MCA records; constitution of an SIT or transfer of investigation

to an independent agency; forensic examination of corporate and

digital records; investigation against private respondents for

alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

the Companies Act, 2013; and even directions for attachment,

freezing and preservation of properties and bank accounts of

private individuals.

17.Thus, the reliefs claimed in the present petition are not merely

different facets of one singular cause of action. They arise from

separate proceedings, founded upon different statutory

provisions, initiated by different authorities and involving different

questions of fact and law. The complaint cases pending before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stand on a different footing from

the FIR registered by the police. Likewise, the SEBI recovery

proceedings operate within a distinct statutory framework and are

subject to the remedies provided under the securities laws.

Similarly, a prayer seeking rectification of the MCA records, a

direction for forensic investigation, constitution of an SIT, or

attachment of private properties cannot be mechanically clubbed

15

with a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings without examining

the statutory source of power, the stage of the proceedings and

the remedy available against the particular action complained of.

18.The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is undoubtedly wide. However, the width of

the jurisdiction does not dispense with the requirement that the

relief sought must be founded upon a clearly identifiable cause of

action and a properly constituted challenge to a particular order or

proceeding. The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction necessarily

requires the Court to ascertain the precise nature of the impugned

action, the authority which has passed or initiated such action, the

statutory provision under which it has been taken, the stage at

which the proceeding presently stands and the legal grounds on

which such action is assailed. Where multiple independent

proceedings are sought to be challenged together, the Court must

be particularly cautious so that proceedings arising under different

enactments and involving different forums are not examined in an

uncertain or omnibus manner.

19.In the present case, the petitioners have not confined the

challenge to any one particular order or proceeding. Even in

respect of the complaint cases, several independent complaint

proceedings have been clubbed together in one prayer, without

separately setting out the factual and legal foundation for

challenging each individual complaint and the respective

16

cognizance or consequential orders passed therein. The

challenge to the FIR is also sought to be considered along with

the SEBI recovery proceedings and the complaints under the

Companies Act. The petitioners have further sought positive and

investigative directions against private persons, including

directions for forensic examination, investigation into alleged

offences, and attachment and freezing of their properties. Such a

wide-ranging prayer would require consideration of several

distinct factual controversies and statutory questions which cannot

appropriately be adjudicated collectively in the present form of the

petition.

20.We are also conscious of the fact that several of the allegations

made by the petitioners, particularly those relating to alleged

fabrication of documents, forgery of signatures, fraudulent

uploading of documents on the MCA portal, continued control of

the Company by respondent No.5, operation of bank accounts,

execution of sale deeds and alleged suppression of facts before

different judicial and statutory forums, are matters which would

require examination with reference to the original records and the

proceedings in which such allegations arise. The petitioners have

relied upon various documents to demonstrate their alleged non-

involvement in the affairs of the Company and the alleged

continuing role of respondent No.5 and his associates. However,

the mere existence of such material, at this stage, cannot enable

the Court to adjudicate, in one omnibus writ proceeding, every

17

disputed question arising from separate criminal, regulatory and

recovery proceedings.

21.It is equally important to bear in mind that the petitioners seek

reliefs against proceedings pending before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, reliefs against the police investigation, reliefs

against SEBI proceedings and directions to statutory authorities

such as the Registrar of Companies. Each of these proceedings

has its own statutory framework and its own record. The Court

exercising writ jurisdiction ought not to undertake a roving or

composite examination of all such proceedings merely because

the petitioners seek to place them within one broad narrative

alleging a common conspiracy. The question whether the

ingredients of a particular offence are made out, whether the

cognizance taken in a particular complaint suffers from non-

application of mind, whether a particular recovery order passed by

SEBI is sustainable, whether the petitioners were "Officers in

Default", and whether any particular investigation requires further

or independent inquiry are distinct questions which may require

separate consideration on their own pleadings and records.

22.We may also observe that the petitioners themselves have raised

several grievances against different authorities and different

orders passed at different points of time. If the petitioners are

aggrieved by any particular complaint case, cognizance order,

order framing charge, warrant or other consequential proceeding,

18

it would be appropriate for them to place the precise order under

challenge before the competent Court and to formulate the

grounds specifically referable to that proceeding. Similarly, if the

petitioners seek to challenge a particular order passed by SEBI or

any other statutory authority, the challenge must be directed

against the specific order and examined in the light of the

statutory scheme governing such proceeding.

23.The Court is not, at this stage, expressing any opinion on the

merits of the allegations made by the petitioners against

respondent No.5 or any other private respondent. Likewise, we

are not examining or adjudicating upon the petitioners' contention

that they were merely commission-based field agents, that their

identities or signatures were allegedly misused, or that

respondent No.5 continued to exercise control over the Company

despite his alleged resignation. These are matters which may be

relevant for consideration in an appropriately constituted

proceeding where the concerned order, complaint, FIR or

statutory action is specifically placed under challenge and the

respective respondents are afforded an effective opportunity to

meet the allegations.

24.The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners,

including the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

(supra), Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), Bhajan Lal (supra) and

19

Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), lay down well-settled principles

concerning individual criminal liability, the requirement of specific

allegations, prevention of abuse of criminal process and the

circumstances in which the High Court may exercise its inherent

or extraordinary jurisdiction. There can be no quarrel with the

propositions of law laid down therein. However, the applicability of

those principles to any particular proceeding would necessarily

depend upon the pleadings, allegations, statutory provisions and

orders forming part of that particular proceeding. The said

judgments, therefore, do not obviate the requirement of a properly

constituted challenge to the specific proceedings sought to be

quashed.

25.The present petition, in its existing form, therefore, suffers from

the fundamental difficulty of seeking adjudication upon multiple

independent proceedings and a series of distinct reliefs in one

composite petition. We are of the considered view that

entertaining such an omnibus challenge would neither facilitate an

effective adjudication nor enable the respective authorities and

private respondents to meet the individual challenges in an

appropriate manner. It may also result in the Court examining

proceedings which are governed by different statutory remedies

and are pending before different authorities or Courts, without the

specific orders and complete records necessary for their

adjudication.

20

26.It is clarified that we are not dismissing the present petition on the

ground that the petitioners can never invoke the jurisdiction of this

Court in respect of any of the grievances raised by them. Rather,

the dismissal is necessitated by the manner in which numerous

distinct proceedings and reliefs have been combined in the

present petition. The petitioners would be at liberty to assail any

particular proceeding or order, if otherwise permissible in law, by

filing a properly constituted and appropriately framed petition,

specifically identifying the impugned order/proceeding, the

statutory provision involved, the relevant factual foundation and

the precise relief sought therein.

27.Needless to observe, if the petitioners choose to avail such liberty,

the concerned Court shall consider the subsequently filed

proceeding strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits,

without being influenced by any observation made in the present

order. All questions relating to the merits of the allegations, the

alleged role of the petitioners, the alleged misuse of their

identities, the status of the petitioners as Directors or "Officers in

Default", the role of respondent No.5 and his associates, the

validity of the criminal proceedings, the legality of the SEBI

proceedings and the necessity, if any, of further investigation are

expressly left open.

28.It is further clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on

the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by either side. The

21

petitioners shall be entitled to place all relevant documents and

legal submissions before the appropriate forum in the proceedings

that may be instituted by them. Likewise, the respondents shall be

entitled to raise all permissible objections, including those relating

to maintainability, limitation, availability of alternative remedy,

delay and laches, statutory jurisdiction and the stage of the

proceedings, in accordance with law.

29.In view of the aforesaid discussion, without entering into the

merits of the allegations or the individual proceedings sought to

be challenged, we are of the considered opinion that the present

writ petition, in its omnibus form, is not liable to be entertained.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

30.However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the

petitioners to file appropriate and separately constituted

proceedings, in accordance with law, for challenging any

particular complaint case, cognizance order, order framing

charge, FIR, SEBI order or any other specific proceeding or action

which they seek to assail, by clearly identifying the impugned

order/proceeding and setting out the factual and legal grounds

relevant thereto.

31.It is made clear that grant of such liberty shall not be construed as

an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of any of the

proposed challenges, and all contentions of parties are left open

to be considered by the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

22

32.With the aforesaid liberty and observations, the present writ

petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu