Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Voices. Verdicts. Vision

No relief to Vicky Ramancha in international Ozempic scam of $18.8 million: Delhi HC

Vicky Ramchanda v. State, [decided on August 01, 2025]

The Delhi High Court has permitted petitioner Vicky Ramancha to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of two orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, and an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in an alleged $18.83 million (approx. Rs157 crore) fraud involving counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs.

Facts of the Case:

The Complainant, a USA based company namely Assure Global LLC filed an application u/s 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts in CT Cases 59074/2024 seeking registration of an FIR against Indian citizen Vicky Ramancha and his Dubai and USA based companies namely RNR Global Procurement Corp. and RNR Premier Medical Equipments Trading LLC respectively. It was alleged that the parties had entered into Master Sale and Purchase Agreements for supply of a total 1,25,000/- doses of anti diabetic drug namely ‘Ozempic’. Vicky, an Indian Citizen and an Indian passport holder had portrayed that he has connections with politician in India and sent agreements and invoices with China and HongKong based company namely Ouchi Pharma which were notarized in India at the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Believing Vicky Ramancha’s deceit, the complainant made payment of a total of $18.8 Million. However, when the said drug was delivered at the US shore, the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) seized the same for being counterfeit and spurious.

The complainant lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of police who transferred the matter to Economic Offences Wing (EOW), New Delhi. Vide order dated 29.05.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts in CT Cases 59074/2024 ordered immediate registration of an FIR within 24 hours. Ramancha’s counsel sought liberty to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC (corresponding to Section 175(3) BNSS) and/or the FIR itself before the Sessions Court. The Court, noting no coercive steps had been taken so far and that investigation notices had been issued, allowed the withdrawal with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.

Accordingly, on 03.06.2025, the EOW, New Delhi registered FIR No. 75/2025 against Vicky Ramancha for committing offence u/s 406, 420 and 120B IPC and started investigation.

Vicky Ramancha filed a Petition u/s 528 B.N.S.S seeking quashing and setting-aside of the Order dated 29.05.2025 and 09.06.2025 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts in CT Cases 59074/2024 and quashing of FIR No.75/2025 dated 03.06.2025 under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station EOW, New Delhi. The same came to be listed before Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna at the Delhi High Court on 01.08.2025.

After some arguments, the Petitioner, when the Court was not inclined to grant any relief, sought permission to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file an Application to challenge the Order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of learned JFMC and/or to challenge the registration of FIR itself on merits, before the Court of Sessions, in accordance with law.

Petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It was also submitted that till then, no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner, however, the High Court recorded the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the Notices have been issued to the Petitioner to join the investigations. The High Court thus ordered that the due procedure shall be followed by the Investigating Agency, in accordance with law while holding that no further directions are required in the present Petition and the same was disposed of accordingly.


Appearances:

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Advocate;
The State was represented by Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State and
The complainant was represented by Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Namit Saxena, Advocate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *