The Supreme Court of India recently declined to intervene in a case involving Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and other directors of KJS Cement (I) Ltd., allowing a 2nd FIR to stand.
The case, which centers on allegations of financial misappropriation, has drawn considerable public and legal attention.
The controversy erupted when Himangini Singh, the daughter of the company’s late founder KJS Ahluwalia, filed the second FIR. In her complaint, Singh accused Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and the other directors of misappropriating company funds for personal gain, causing significant financial losses to the company.
The second FIR follows an earlier one filed over financial irregularities within KJS Cement (I) Ltd. However, this new complaint introduces additional allegations of misconduct, leading to further scrutiny.
On October 29, 2024, the Delhi High Court upheld the second FIR, ruling that it was based on new facts that had surfaced after the first FIR was filed. The court emphasized that the two FIRs addressed different aspects of alleged wrongdoing and did not violate the principle of “double jeopardy.”
Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the second FIR to remain in effect.
In his defense, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the second FIR was an abuse of legal process, suggesting that the allegations could have been addressed under the first FIR. Meanwhile, Advocate Ayush Jindal, representing Singh, argued that the new FIR was essential to address fresh allegations and that the Delhi High Court had already thoroughly reviewed the matter and found no reason to quash the FIR.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the investigation to proceed under the second FIR has significant legal implications. It highlights that separate FIRs can be filed when new facts or evidence arise, even if the parties involved are the same.
This ruling sets a precedent for future cases where additional allegations emerge after an initial FIR and could influence corporate governance and accountability in the future.
As the investigation continues, the outcome could have serious consequences for KJS Cement (I) Ltd. and its directors, potentially reshaping the company’s future.
