Sitting through the hearing in Court one could sense the strain behind a dispute that has dragged on for more than a decade. On Monday, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with lower court orders in a long-running criminal complaint filed by businessman Rajan Sareen against his former employees. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made it clear that, except for one limited allegation of criminal intimidation, the case did not warrant reopening. The petition was dismissed, bringing a quiet but firm end to the matter.
Background
The case arose from Sareen’s complaint that several women who earlier worked in his companies - Crescore Wealth Management and Unor Exim - had conspired against him after resigning. He accused them of taking confidential company data, filing false police complaints, and damaging his reputation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Settles Decades-Old Faridabad Land Auction Dispute, Clarifies Rights of Buyers During
Initially, the magistrate had dismissed most of the allegations, finding no sufficient ground to summon the women for offences like criminal breach of trust, defamation, or filing false cases. A sessions court later agreed, though it did summon one former employee, Sangeeta Nagpal, for alleged criminal intimidation. Sareen then approached the High Court, arguing that courts below had ignored evidence and acted mechanically.
Court’s Observations
Justice Krishna walked through the legal position calmly, point by point. On allegations of false cases and misleading the police, the bench noted that such offences require a formal complaint by a public authority. “Without that statutory requirement being met, the court cannot take cognisance,” the judge observed, in simple terms meaning the case itself was not legally maintainable.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Foreign Banks’ Head Office Expense Deductions, Overrules Long
On the claim of data theft, the court found the evidence thin. Merely having access to company documents during employment does not automatically amount to criminal breach of trust. As the bench put it, entrustment under criminal law requires clear proof of dishonest intention, not just workplace access.
The defamation charge met a similar fate. The court explained that approaching police or authorities with complaints, even if disputed later, does not by itself amount to defamation. “Reputation loss cannot be presumed merely because a complaint was filed,” the bench remarked.
However, the court drew a clear line when it came to alleged threats. Testimony from Sareen and two witnesses indicated that Sangeeta Nagpal had warned him against pursuing legal action, allegedly threatening false complaints. On this narrow point, the sessions court’s decision to summon her was found justified.
Read also:- Supreme Court restores trial court decree in Kerala land deal dispute, rejects High Court’s remand
Decision
Concluding the hearing, the High Court upheld the earlier orders in full. It refused to summon the other respondents for any offence and confirmed that only Sangeeta Nagpal would face trial for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. “There is no infirmity in the impugned orders,” the court said, dismissing the petition and closing all pending applications. The matter, for now at least, stands settled at that.
Case Title: Rajan Sareen v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Others
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2514/2017 (with CRL.M.A. 26337/2025)
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 CrPC
Decision Date: 15 December 2025
