Shalini Bhateja vs State of U.P. 2026 INSC 28
Summary
Supreme Court addressed a special leave petition by Smt. Shalini Bhateja and another seeking quashing of FIR noting parallel proceedings and allowing impleadment of the NCLT-appointed Interim Resolution Professional. It recorded that related proceedings in Delhi and Agra on the same facts stand closed or not pressed, and that a final report in the Tajganj case found allegations unsubstantiated, while directing the petitioners to appear within a month to be granted bail with charges read the same day and to cooperate for expeditious trial. The complainant may be represented by the Interim Resolution Professional, who can seek summoning of former officials/directors as witnesses, and all pending applications are disposed.
Case Info
Case: Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 28.
- Case name: Smt. Shalini Bhateja & Anr. versus The State of U.P. & Ors.
- Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 28
- Coram: K. Vinod Chandran, J.; Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
- Judgment date: January 06, 2026 (New Delhi)
- Caselaws and citations referred: The judgment mentions “to be considered as per the existing precedents of this Court” regarding bail but does not cite any specific Supreme Court decisions by name or citation in the text provided.
- Statutes/laws referred:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
- Section 156(3) (application for FIR registration)
- Section 173(4) (application related to police report proceedings)
- References to criminal procedure stages: FIR, chargesheet/final report, bail.
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code context via NCLT proceedings and Interim Resolution Professional (no specific sections cited).
