Shrikant Ojha v. State of UP & 2026 INSC 482 - Restraining Filing OF Police Report

Case name: Shrikant Ojha v. State of UP & Ors.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 482Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. ChandurkarJudgment date: 12 May 2026, New Delhi

Case laws and citations referred

1. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine 1948
2. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr. v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751
3. Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors., 2025 INSC 31
4. Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401
5. Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2023) 8 SCC 181
6. Neeta Singh (referred to in context of limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226; citation not fully set out in text, but relied on via quotation in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni)

Statutes / laws referred

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
2. • Section 193(3) (police report / chargesheet)
   • Section 528 BNSS (analogous to inherent/supervisory power to quash after cognizance, as discussed)
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – various FIRs invoke:
3. • Sections 167, 212, 217, 419, 420, 429, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 409, 34, 511
3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – in present FIR No. 642/2025 (converted provisions):
4. • Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS
4. Code of Criminal Procedure / successor framework
5. • Section 482 CrPC (mentioned in analogy when distinguishing writ jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction)
5. Constitution of India
6. • Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts)
   • Article 227 is mentioned indirectly in the quotation from Pradnya (as an alternative supervisory route, though not invoked here).
6. Societies Registration Act, 1860 – governing the registration and management of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India.

Three‑sentence brief summary

The case arises from multiple FIRs alleging that an unauthorized group has been repeatedly selling freehold lands of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India (founded under the guidance of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) on the basis of forged documents, and challenges an Allahabad High Court interim order that allowed investigation to continue but restrained filing of the police report under Section 193(3) BNSS in respect of FIR No. 642 of 2025. The Supreme Court holds that such a direction to withhold the chargesheet is unjustified on the facts and contrary to the principles in Neeharika Infrastructure and correctly read Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, sets aside the restraint, and directs the Investigating Officer to complete investigation and file the report. Given the scale of alleged fraudulent alienation of society land, the Court also directs constitution of an SIT under the supervision of the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh (with the Registrar of Societies as a member) to conduct a fact‑finding enquiry regarding all such transfers and to ensure unimpaired investigation, while protecting respondent no. 2 from coercive action until the SIT report and investigation are completed, subject to full cooperation.