Supreme Court Sets Aside Chargesheet Stay, Orders SIT Into Maharishi Society Land Sales

A Division Bench of Justices Maheshwari and Chandurkar overturns an Allahabad High Court order that had frozen a chargesheet, directing an SIT to probe repeated fraudulent land sales by rival factions of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India.

The Supreme Court on 12 May 2026 set aside an interim order of the Allahabad High Court that had restrained the investigating officer from filing a police report under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in a case involving the alleged fraudulent sale of lands belonging to the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India — a society established under the guidance of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The Court held that the High Court's reliance on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra to justify the chargesheet stay was misplaced, as that judgment did not support such a direction. Going further, the Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into all land alienations made without the society's permission, directing a report within three months.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

The Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, bearing registration No. S-2366 of 1963, with its registered office at Delhi and administrative office at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The society holds freehold immoveable properties at various locations.

Disputes over the society's management surfaced in 2011 when one G. Ram Chandramohan allegedly sold society lands in villages Devri and Khamaria, Takhtpur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. A complaint of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery was submitted to the Registrar of Societies in June 2011. Civil Suit No. 38-A of 2011 was filed before the District Court, Takhtpur, Bilaspur, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were unauthorised and void. FIR No. 328/2011 was registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 429, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On 17 December 2011, the society filed CS (OS) No. 3221 of 2011 before the Delhi High Court, seeking injunction to restrain unauthorised groups from preparing forged office bearers. The High Court granted an ex-parte injunction on 20 December 2011, directing parties to maintain status quo with respect to title and possession of the society's immovable properties and restraining the defendants from creating any third-party interest without leave of the Court. That suit, later renumbered CS No. 9984/2016, is now pending before the Saket Court on account of a change in pecuniary jurisdiction.

Despite these proceedings, the alleged sales continued. FIR No. 486/2014 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara. Further FIRs followed in 2023 and 2024 at police stations in Noida, Shajapur and Jabalpur, each relating to fresh disposals of society property through forged documents. The civil suit at Takhtpur was eventually decided in the society's favour, with the court holding that the sale deeds were not binding on the society.

The immediate trigger for the present appeal was FIR No. 642 of 2025 registered at Police Station Noida Sector 39, alleging that G. Ram Chandramohan, Akash Malviya and Pradip Singh sold society land to M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited on the basis of forged documents. Respondent No. 2 — a director of that company — filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the FIR. On 6 February 2026, the High Court allowed investigation to continue but directed that the police report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS shall not be submitted by the investigating officer in court for the duration of the writ petition. The complainant, Shrikant Ojha, challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Why the High Court's Chargesheet Stay Could Not Stand

The Allahabad High Court had relied on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra to justify restraining the filing of the chargesheet. The Supreme Court examined that judgment closely and found the reliance misplaced.

The Court explained that Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni was concerned with a different question altogether: the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution once a magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence. That judgment drew a distinction between the stage before cognizance — when a writ under Article 226 to quash an FIR or chargesheet is maintainable — and the stage after cognizance, when the remedy lies under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court found that Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni contained no reasoning that could support a direction to stay the filing of a chargesheet.

The Court also invoked its earlier Constitution Bench decision in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which had categorically held that a blanket interim order restraining the police from taking coercive steps — without assigning reasons — is unsustainable. The Court quoted the relevant passage from Neeharika Infrastructure to the effect that such orders affect the statutory right and duty of the police to investigate cognizable offences, and that a cryptic order without reasons cannot be sustained.

The Court drew a careful distinction: a High Court may, in an appropriate case, exercise discretion to protect an accused from coercive steps while a writ petition is pending. But directing that the chargesheet itself shall not be filed is a different matter entirely. The Court held that “such direction deserves to be set aside.”

The High Court had also referred to Mohd. Ibrahim and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and others for the proposition that where there is a civil dispute there cannot be criminality and the FIR can be quashed. The Supreme Court did not accept that reasoning on the facts, pointing to the pattern of repeated sales of society property in defiance of existing court orders across multiple jurisdictions.

The Management Dispute and the Registrar's Report

During the hearing, the Court examined an affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh containing a report from the Office of the Registrar of Societies. That report disclosed that the society has two different lists of office bearers — one group led by Sh. Ajay Prakash Srivastava and another by Sh. Chandra Mohan and others. The matter concerning the society is also pending before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8525/2024.

The Court observed that despite the pendency of civil and criminal litigation across multiple states, and despite orders passed by various courts, those involved in selling the society's property had not been deterred. FIRs had been registered in Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh had dismissed a quashing petition filed by G. Ram Chandramohan and Awadesh Pandey in connection with FIR No. 20/2024. Bail cancellation petitions filed by the society in the Chhattisgarh High Court remained pending.

Constitution of the SIT and Its Mandate

Relying on its earlier decision in Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., the Court held that the scale and persistence of the alleged fraud warranted the constitution of an SIT for unimpaired and unobstructed investigation. In Pratibha Manchanda, the Court had observed that organised criminal networks exploit vulnerable individuals through forged sale deeds and manipulated land records, and that such scams erode public trust and hinder socio-economic progress.

The Court directed that an SIT be constituted under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The Registrar of Societies is to be made one of its members, so that the lands belonging to the society can be identified. The SIT's mandate is to find out how the society's lands have been alienated or transferred to third parties without the society's permission. A fact-finding enquiry is to be conducted with respect to all lands already sold by persons other than the original office bearers of the society.

The SIT is to submit its report to the concerned police within three months. On receipt of the report, the concerned police station is to take cognizance if the acts of the persons involved are found to be fraudulent and to involve mens rea constituting an offence.

The Court directed that all accused persons shall cooperate with both the SIT and the ongoing investigation. It made clear that “the SIT shall deal with all the people at par uninfluenced by unknown force.” The SIT is at liberty to give an opportunity to the stakeholders before submitting its report. The report is to be made available to the High Court for its decision in the pending writ petition, after the High Court asks for objections and affords an opportunity to the parties.

On the question of protection for respondent No. 2, the Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against him until the SIT submits its report and the investigation is completed by the police.

The Court's Observations on the Society's Purpose

Before disposing of the appeal, the Court made pointed observations about the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India. It noted that the society was registered for the development of society at large, and that its founder had not intended for internal friction between groups to result in the sale of valuable property for private benefit. The Court observed that it was also not intended that office bearers would continuously sell property in defiance of pending civil and criminal proceedings. The Court directed the SIT to take a holistic view of all aspects and submit its report so that further acts of forgery and cheating, if any, can be stopped.

The Court was careful to note that it was not embarking on the merits of the case, since the appeal arose from an interim order.

Order

The Supreme Court disposed of the criminal appeal with the following directions:

• The Allahabad High Court's interim order dated 6 February 2026 restraining the filing of the police report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS is set aside.
• The Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation and file the report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2025 dated 20 December 2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Police Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
• An SIT is to be constituted under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, with the Registrar of Societies as one of its members.
• The SIT is to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into all land alienations made without the society's permission and submit its report to the concerned police within three months.
• No coercive action shall be taken against respondent No. 2 until the SIT submits its report and the investigation is completed.
• All accused persons shall cooperate with the SIT and the investigation.
• The SIT's report shall be made available to the High Court for its decision in the pending writ petition.
• All pending applications stand disposed of.