‘Scope of Discharge Plea Limited, Can’t Look Beyond Charge-Sheet’: Supreme Court

Before the apex court, they contended that the high court, through the impugned order, had dismissed their Section 482 petition without evaluating the merits of the case presented. The high court had simply observed that the appellants were free to raise all their contentions while arguing their discharge application.

The Supreme Court bench observed, "This court has repeatedly held that the scope of inquiry in discharge application is limited and no document which is not a part of the charge-sheet can be considered at that stage."

Given that the high court had not considered the appellants' case on its merits, the apex court set aside the impugned order of September 20, 2024. Consequently, the application under Section 482 of the CrPC was restored to the file of the high court.

The bench further directed that, "The restored petition shall be listed before the Roster Bench on 15th October, 2025. The parties who are represented today before this Court shall be under an obligation to appear on that day and no further notice shall be served to them."

Court also clarified that all questions relating to the matter are left open to be decided by the high court.

The Supreme Court additionally directed that the interim relief it had granted on December 2, 2024, would continue to operate until further orders are passed by the high court. That interim order had stayed the further proceedings pursuant to the 2023 FIR registered at Police Station Bhoiwada, District Mumbai City.

Allowing the appeal, court directed its registry to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, who would ensure the application is listed before the Roster Bench.

The case arose from an FIR filed by businessman Jayantilal Bhimsi Gangar, director of Gangar Opticians Pvt Ltd, who alleged that his brothers, Jagdish and Surendra, had used his digital signature and forged documents to misappropriate over 9,000 shares in Gangar Enterprises Pvt Ltd, thereby causing him a loss of Rs 15 to 20 crores.