On Thursday, the Delhi High Court issued an order to halt the progress of a First Information Report (FIR) against Hero MotoCorp, a prominent automobile company, along with its chairman and executives. The FIR pertains to an alleged case of bill forgery.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has stated that the stay on the proceedings will be effective until the upcoming hearing scheduled for December 6, 2023.

The case was initiated on October 5, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Roop Darshan Pandey, who is the promoter of Brains Logistics Private Limited. This complaint was filed following an order from a trial court. In the complaint, Hero MotoCorp and several of its officials, including Chairman Pawan Munjal, were named as parties involved.

The FIR levied accusations against Hero MotoCorp, including charges of cheating, forgery, and creating fraudulent bills amounting to ₹5.9 crore. These alleged offenses were said to have occurred during the 2009-10 period, as per the complaint filed by Brain Logistics Pvt Ltd.

The stay order was granted following Hero MotoCorp's petition to the High Court to have the FIR nullified or quashed.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented Hero MotoCorp and put forth the argument that there is an ongoing civil dispute between Hero and the complainant, Roop Darshan Pandey. He contended that the matter should be resolved through arbitration, allowing an arbitrator to make decisions regarding the issue. Additionally, Mukul Rohatgi emphasized that there is no element of criminality involved in the case.

Following the arguments presented, the Court decided to stay the proceedings related to the FIR and also suspended the enforcement of the trial court's order.

Meanwhile, the parties involved were encouraged to explore the potential for a settlement in the case.

Justice Sharma stated that the trial court's order, along with the proceedings in the FIR, will continue to be suspended. Furthermore, the involved parties were advised to investigate the potential for reaching a compromise, and the legal counsel was instructed to seek guidance and instructions regarding the possibility of a compromise.