Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into Sale Of Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation Lands In UP

The Supreme Court has ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to probe the alleged fraudulent sale of lands belonging to the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, while setting aside an Allahabad High Court interim direction that had restrained police from filing a chargesheet in the case.

A bench of Justice JK. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that while a court may exercise discretion to protect an accused from coercive steps during pendency of proceedings, directing the investigating agency not to file a police report under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was unjustified in the facts of the case.

The case arose from an appeal filed by complainant Shrikant Ojha against an interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a criminal writ petition filed by one of the accused, Raghvendra Pratap Singh, a director of M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited. The High Court had allowed investigation to continue in FIR No. 642 of 2025, registered at Noida Sector 39 Police Station, but restrained the investigating officer from submitting the police report till the writ petition was decided.

According to the Supreme Court judgment, the dispute concerns the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, a society registered in 1963 under the Societies Registration Act. The Court noted allegations that various individuals had repeatedly sold society land in different states using forged documents and unauthorised claims to management control. Multiple civil and criminal proceedings are already pending in Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh over alleged fraudulent alienation of society property.

The bench noted that despite earlier FIRs and ongoing litigation, properties were allegedly being continuously sold.

“Even then they disposed the property of the society taking the law in their hand,” the Court observed while referring to allegations against the accused in the present FIR.

The High Court had relied on prior judgments suggesting that disputes with a civil flavour may not always warrant criminal prosecution, and had also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in *Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni*. However, the apex court said that reliance was misplaced.

The bench clarified that Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni did not support a blanket stay on filing of a chargesheet. Rather, that judgment explained the distinction between the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 before cognisance is taken and its powers under statutory quashing jurisdiction thereafter.

The Court also reiterated the principle laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra that blanket interim orders impeding investigation are generally impermissible without proper reasons.

“From the reading of judgment of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, we do not find any reason to direct stay on filing of the chargesheet,” the Court said, directing the investigating officer to complete the probe and file the report in the Noida FIR.

Finding broader indications of organised land fraud, the Court decided to expand the scope beyond the immediate FIR.

Referring to its earlier judgment in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana concerning land scams, the bench said such frauds undermine public trust and require unobstructed investigation.

The Court accordingly directed constitution of an SIT under the supervision of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary, with the Registrar of Societies as one of its members.

The SIT has been tasked with identifying all lands belonging to the society, examining how properties were alienated or transferred without authorisation, and conducting a fact-finding inquiry into sales executed by persons other than the original office bearers. The SIT must submit its report to the police within three months, after which the relevant police authorities may take action if fraudulent conduct involving criminal intent is found.

While granting interim protection from coercive action to respondent No. 2 until the SIT submits its report and investigation is completed, the Court directed all accused persons to cooperate fully.

Significantly, the bench expressed concern about internal factional disputes within the society leading to dissipation of assets meant for public welfare.

“After the death of its founder, it was not intended by him that the friction within groups shall lead to fights and the property which was quite valuable, shall be sold for their own interest contrary to the purpose and object,” the Court observed.

Case : Shrikant Ojha v State of UP and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Click here to read the judgment