Bombay High Court dismisses plea seeking CBI probe against RIL, Mukesh Ambani

Bombay High Court dismisses plea for CBI probe against RIL and Mukesh Ambani, deeming it without merit and an abuse of process.

The Bombay High Court on Friday (March 27, 2026) dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a first information report (FIR) against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its officials over allegations of unauthorised extraction of natural gas from wells belonging to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) in the Krishna Godavari Basin.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam found the petition, filed by Jitendra Punamchand Maru, to be without merit and motivated by oblique considerations. The court observed that the petitioner had failed to establish any public interest in the matter and noted the significant delay in approaching the court.

The petitioner had alleged that RIL, under a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for exploration, engaged in sideways drilling into adjacent ONGC wells between 2004 and 2014 to extract gas without authority. The petition relied on a 2015 report by M/s. De Golyer and Macnaghten, which stated that RIL had tapped gas from ONGC wells, and findings of a committee headed by former Chief Justice A.P. Shah, which quantified the value of the extracted gas.

The CBI, in its affidavit, stated that the allegations appeared to pertain to a civil dispute. The agency informed the court that the petitioner’s complaint had been closed in September 2025. RIL, which was added as a respondent, contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and that the dispute was contractual in nature. RIL also pointed to an arbitral award in its favour from July 2018, noting that pending litigation over the award was before the Supreme Court.

The court overruled an objection from the petitioner’s counsel, Rajendra Desai, that RIL was not entitled to be heard at the stage of seeking FIR registration. The Bench noted that the facts in the petition were derived from a judgment of the Delhi High Court and observed that the petitioner could not offer an explanation for the delay of approximately 15 years in approaching the court.

In its judgment, the Bench stated that registration of a criminal case entails serious consequences and that a writ petition seeking such a direction must be examined for the petitioner’s bona fides. The court noted that the petitioner, who stated he was previously engaged in the sale of plastics and was not carrying on any business activity, could not demonstrate any public cause behind the petition.