[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Amardeep Soni vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 22 July, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 15.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 22.07.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 4606/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20013/2025
AMARDEEP SONI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Sameer Tayyeb,
Mr. Gaurav Soni, Mr. Mayank
Sharma and Mr. Prateek Banerjee,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with ASI Virender Kumar, PS
Sunlight Colony, Delhi.
+ CRL.M.C. 4609/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20017/2025
SANDEEP SONI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Sameer Tayyeb,
Mr. Gaurav Soni, Mr. Mayank
Sharma and Mr. Prateek Banerjee,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with ASI Virender Kumar, PS
Sunlight Colony, Delhi.
+ CRL.M.C. 4616/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20050/2025
HARSH SONI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Sameer Tayyeb,
Mr. Gaurav Soni, Mr. Mayank
Sharma and Mr. Prateek Banerjee,
Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 1 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR Digitally signed by GIRISH
GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Signing Date:22.07.2025 Date: 2025.07.22 14:58:42 +05'30'
18:44:23
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with ASI Virender Kumar, PS
Sunlight Colony, Delhi.
+ CRL.M.C. 4623/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20080/2025
KALI PRASAD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Sameer Tayyeb,
Mr. Gaurav Soni, Mr. Mayank
Sharma and Mr. Prateek Banerjee,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with ASI Virender Kumar, PS
Sunlight Colony, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
COMMON JUDGMENT
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:
1. By way of these four petitions, the petitioners who are members of a
family and are accused persons, seek quashing of case FIR No. 355/2024 of
PS Sunlight Colony for offences under Section 115(2)126(2)/351(3)/3(5) of
BNS and the proceedings arising out of the same. The subject FIR as well as
the factual and legal matrix being same, these petitions are taken up together
for disposal.
2. Notice of these petitions was accepted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (APP), and with consent of both sides I heard the final arguments
on the same day.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 2 of 17 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.22 14:58:21 +05'30' Signing Date:22.07.2025 18:44:23
3. Briefly stated, prosecution case unfolding through statement of the
complainant de facto Dwarika Prashad, which statement was registered as
the subject FIR, is as follows.
3.1 The premises no.153, Jeewan Nagar, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi,
consists of five floors; the complainant de facto with his family is living on
fourth floor for past about 13 years, while his brother Ramjag Soni is on the
ground floor. Pertaining to fourth and fifth floor of the said premises, the
complainant de facto is embroiled in a property dispute with his cousins.
3.2 On 03.11.2024, at about 05:00pm when the complainant de facto was
in his shop, his paternal cousins Amardeep Soni and Sandeep Soni started
breaking lock and door of fourth floor of the premises, so he went to the
fourth floor and asked his cousins as to why the door and the lock were
being broken, in response to which they abused him and threatened to kill
him. Thereafter, his brother Ramjag Soni also reached there and asked their
cousins the reasons for breaking the lock and the door, in response to which,
their cousins Amardeep and Sandeep assaulted Ramjag Soni with hammer
and threatened him to leave otherwise he would be killed. So out of fear,
Ramjag Soni ran downstairs and called police. The complainant de facto
also came downstairs and his brother went back home in nearby Bhagwan
Nagar.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 3 of 17 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.22 14:58:01 +05'30' Signing Date:22.07.2025 18:44:23 3.3 Ramjag Soni called up their cousin Shesh Prashad son of their uncle
Devi Prashad and informed him about the incident, but Shesh Prashad also
threatened him over phone.
3.4 Thereafter, Ramjag Soni went to his uncle Devi Prashad to tell about
the conduct of his cousins. Devi Prashad resides in the same vicinity on third
floor of the premises, so the complainant de facto called Devi Prashad and
sat on ground floor shop of the latter.
3.5 After sometime, Amardeep cousin of complainant de facto also
reached there abusing him, and after beating him up, forcibly pushed him
out of the shop. Hearing the commotion, Aachman Soni nephew of
complainant de facto also reached there and was beaten up by Amardeep.
3.6 In the meanwhile, paternal uncle and cousin Sandeep Soni of
complainant de facto also reached there and beat up his brother and nephew.
3.7 Shesh Prashad and paternal aunt of complainant de facto, carrying a
wooden stick also reached there. Paternal uncle and aunt of complainant de
facto along with their three children beat up brother and nephews of
complainant de facto with stick, and when he tried to intervene, his elder
brother Kali Prashad and cousins Harsh Soni, Sarita Soni, Sheetal Soni as
well as their husbands Uday, Shyam and Gaurav Soni also started beating
him, his brother and nephew.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 4 of 17 pages By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH Date: 2025.07.22 14:57:38 +05'30' Signing Date:22.07.2025 18:44:23 3.8 In the meanwhile, Anand Soni son of complainant de facto also
reached there and tried to intervene, but Shesh Prashad grabbed neck of
Anand Soni, pushing him out of door, causing injuries.
3.9 Thereafter, complainant de facto and his son were beaten up with an
iron rod. Devi Prashad, along with his sons, daughters and sons-in-law also
threatened to kill the complainant de facto if he reported the matter to police.
3.10 Feeling scared, the complainant de facto and his family members
reached the police station, from where they were taken to AIIMS Trauma
Centre for medical treatment. On account of his medical condition, the
complainant de facto made his statement on 06.11.2024 and got the subject
FIR registered.
3.11 The Investigating Officer (IO), collected MLCs of the complainant de
facto and his family members, in which injuries suffered by the complainant
de facto and his relatives were recorded as multiple abrasions on arms.
3.12 On the basis of above mentioned complaint and MLCs of the injured
persons, local police registered the subject FIR for offences under Section
115(2)126(2)/351(3)/3(5) of BNS. After completion of investigation,
chargesheet was filed before the learned trial magistrate.
3.13 Hence, the present petition for quashing the subject FIR and the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 5 of 17 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.22 14:57:18 +05'30' Signing Date:22.07.2025 18:44:23
4. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that the trial on the impugned
FIR would not lead to conviction, so it is a fit case to quash the proceedings
pending before the trial court. Taking me through the MLCs of the injured
persons, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that all MLCs record that
the injured concerned was assailed by some known persons; and since
names of those known assailants have not been mentioned, the MLCs lose
credence. Further, it was argued on behalf of petitioners that the number of
assailants mentioned in each MLC is different and the same is also different
from statement under Section 161 CrPC of one witness. Learned counsel for
petitioners placed heavy reliance on the video footage, filed with the
chargesheet and claimed that the same shows the complainant party making
a phone call to police even prior to the alleged incident, which would in turn
show their planning to attack the petitioners. No other argument was
advanced by learned counsel in support of the petitions, as recorded in
ordersheet dated 15.07.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that out of same incident, a
cross FIR also was registered against members of the complainant party and
both matters are pending before the learned trial court for consideration of
charge. According to learned prosecutor, the arguments raised on behalf of
petitioners are matter of trial, so on the basis of these arguments, the
impugned FIR cannot be quashed.
6. At this stage, it would be apposite to briefly traverse through the legal
position relevant for the issue under consideration. The exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and the consequent proceedings is an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 6 of 17 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:56:57 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
exception, not a rule. The provision does not confer any new power on the
High Courts; it only saves the inherent powers, which already existed in the
High Courts at the time of first codification of the criminal procedure. It
stipulates three situations, in which the inherent power can be exercised: (a)
to give effect to an order under the Code, (b) to prevent abuse of process of
the court, and (c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While exercising
powers under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot act as a Court of
Appeal or Court of Revision, much less the Trial Court. The High Court
must be cautious not to overstep into the jurisdiction assigned to the trial or
appellate or revisional courts. The inherent jurisdiction must not be invoked
routinely, but sparingly.
6.1 In the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, the
Supreme Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power
can be exercised to quash the criminal trial proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety
do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where
there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation,
may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 7 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:56:39 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily
embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would
not be sustained. That is within the exclusive domain of the Trial
Judge.
6.2 The scope of inherent powers of the High Court qua quashing of FIR
and proceedings arising therefrom was elaborately laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case titled State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426. The parameters laid down in the said case hold the field till date.
In plethora of judicial pronouncements dealing with quashing of FIR and
consequent criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court as well as all High
Courts have placed reliance on those parameters, which are extracted as
follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do notSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 8 of 17 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:56:17 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim
or caprice.” (emphasis supplied)
6.3 In the case of CBI vs Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686, the
Supreme Court reiterated thus:
“17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 9 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA Date:
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
2025.07.22 14:55:57 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are
of the view that the impugned order [Arvind Khanna v. CBI, 2015
SCC OnLine Del 13651 : (2015) 153 DRJ 350] passed by the High
Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC,
the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and
allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High
Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the
allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by
the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has
exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC.
18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage,
when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent court,
is completely incorrect and uncalled for.
19………
20. The correctness of the defence whether such amounts were
received by the respondent from his father or not is a serious factual
dispute. It is not an admitted position, as recorded by the High Court.
The correctness of the defence of the respondent is to be gone into
only after appreciating the evidence during the trial. Merely, by
referring to statements alleged to have been made by father of the
respondent, Mr Vipin Khanna, and also on behalf of one of the entities
i.e. New Heaven Nominees, the High Court has committed an error in
recording a finding in favour of the respondent.” (emphasis supplied)
6.4 In the case of Amish Devgan vs Union of India and Ors, (2021) 1
SCC 1, the Supreme Court held thus:
“(vii) Conclusion and relief
116. At this stage and before recording our final conclusion, we would
like to refer to decision of this Court in Pirthi Chand [State of H.P. v.
Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 210] wherein it has
been held : (SCC pp. 44-45, paras 12-13)
“12. It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of
the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be
taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the
FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is
rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it
first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations
constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an
initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into
cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic
concluded) and the charge-sheet is laid, the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 10 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH
Date: 2025.07.22 14:55:40 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section
161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is
not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the
prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance
with the provisions which are considered mandatory and effect
of its non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is
concluded. The court has to prima facie consider from the
averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses
on the record in support thereof whether court could take
cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further
with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable
offence is made out, no further act could be done except to
quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases i.e. in
rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to
wreak private vengeance issue of process under Criminal
Procedure Code is availed of. A reading of a [Vide
Corrigendum dated 20-3-1996 issued from Residential Office of
Hon’ble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy.] complaint or FIR itself
does not disclose at all any cognizable offence — the court may
embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.5 In the case of Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,
(2021) 9 SCC 35, the Supreme Court held thus:
“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case
the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has
quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when
the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC
quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer
after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and
after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement
of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned
Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329
and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the
cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High
Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration
the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the
statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at
the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint
only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offenceSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 11 of 17 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:55:17 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter
when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the
charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the
matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to
consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a
catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the
merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if
the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or
conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to
examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any
cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the
investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate
court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to
be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie
material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court
cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from
contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is
more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed
that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating
authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine
questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to
how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the
criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as
if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or
conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC.” (emphasis supplied)6.6 In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 484, the Supreme Court reiterated:
“39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be
nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political
rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the
behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not
justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the
criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation
on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the
earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 12 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR Digitally signed by GIRISH
GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:54:56 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the
allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial.
In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does
not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in
exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations
are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No.
19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception
itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the
application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
6.7. In the case of CBI vs Aryan Singh and Ors., (2023) 18 SCC 399, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“6. From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan Singh v.
CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it
appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it,
as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High
Court was considering the applications against the judgment and
order passed by the learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per
the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the
mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and
order has observed that the charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating
agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required
to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency.
7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in
the allegations and the material collected during the course of the
investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482
CrPC, the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the accused is required to be
tried or not”.
8. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation
of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it
is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the
CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That
thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons
have been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in
observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 13 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA Date:
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
2025.07.22 14:54:38 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be
considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the
conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to
be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during
the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be
tried.” (emphasis supplied)6.8 Most recently, in the case of Abhishek Singh vs Ajay Kumar and
Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1313, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated:
“9. The scope of the Court’s power to quash and set aside proceedings
is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the arguments
advanced have the potential to raise many issues for consideration,
we must first satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of the exercise of
such power by the High Court. The task of the High Court, when
called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to quash the
proceedings, is to see whether, prima facie, an offence is made out
or not. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the
Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev
Kourav v. Baisahab, it was held:
“8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when
an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes
the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the
accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except
in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the
criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot
embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering
the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this
Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the
ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the
Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.”
15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court had
improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the appellant. It
stands clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the matter,
and the guilt or innocence of the respondents has to be established in
the trial, in accordance with the law. The proceedings out of the
subject FIR, mentioned in paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the
file of the concerned Court.” (emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 14 of 17 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:54:19 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
7. Falling back to the present case, as mentioned above, during
arguments learned counsel for petitioners did not contend that the allegations
made in the impugned FIR do not prima facie constitute cognizable offence.
However, it would be pertinent to note that in the pleadings, the petitioners
did plead that no offence of voluntarily causing hurt is made out because
there is nothing to infer guilty intention to hurt. But this argument was
apparently given up in view of plain wordings of the definition of offence
and clear distinction between guilty intention and voluntariness.
8. Rather, the video footage relied upon by petitioners themselves would
establish otherwise. The video footage clearly captured the brawl between
two groups, who are now facing cross trials. Merely because one person in
the said video footage is visible speaking over mobile phone prior to
incident, it is not possible (nor permissible in these proceedings) to draw a
positive inference that the said call was being made to police in preplanned
manner. That can be ascertained only after analysis through full dress trial.
9. The only ground on which the petitioners have assailed the impugned
FIR is that trial would not culminate into conviction because of absence of
names of the known assailants in the MLCs and difference in number of
assailants mentioned in each MLC. These aspects can be explained by the
concerned witnesses once they step into the box during trial. By holding that
on these grounds, the trial would positively culminate into acquittal, this
court would be conducting a mini trial through appreciation of evidence on
record, which cannot be carried out in these proceedings. These are the
aspects of appreciation of evidence as to under what medical condition each
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 15 of 17 pages
By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.22 14:54:02 +05’30’
Signing Date:22.07.2025
18:44:23
of the injured was when he gave the alleged history to the doctors on duty.
This court lacks jurisdiction to minutely analyze the material collected by
the investigators.
10. Out of the offences for which the petitioners have been chargesheeted,
prima facie, only one offence, which is under Section 126(2) BNS is the
cognizable offence. According to prosecution, by obstructing the
complainant de facto from entering his house on fourth floor of the
premises, where he has been residing for past 13 years, the petitioners
wrongfully restrained him, thereby committing an offence punishable under
Section 126(2) BNS. According to the FIR, the petitioners broke lock and
door of the fourth floor of the premises and when the complainant de facto
objected, they assaulted him and his family members with stick, iron rod and
hammer, due to which out of fear he could not enter the fourth floor and ran
downstairs. As mentioned above, the trial court is yet to hear even on the
point of charge. The question as to whether an offence under 126(2) BNS is
made out and as to whether any other offence also is made out from the
chargesheet and documents annexed therewith would fall within the domain
of the trial court. It would certainly be not justified for this court to invoke
inherent powers and overstep into the jurisdiction of trial court. For, it is not
a case of no offence made out from material on record of the chargesheet. To
make it abundantly clear, the trial court while deciding the question about
the charges made out, shall not be bound by the above observations and shall
take independent view.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 16 of 17 pages By:NEETU N NAIR GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH Date: 2025.07.22 14:53:40 +05'30' Signing Date:22.07.2025 18:44:23
11. Being completely devoid of merits and frivolous, all these petitions
are dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by each of the
petitioners with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one
week. For compliance qua costs, copy hereof be sent to the learned trial
court forthwith. Pending applications stand disposed of.
Digitally signed by
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.22 14:53:18 +05'30' GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) JULY 22, 2025/ry Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Amardeep Soni & Ors. vs State Page 17 of 17 pages By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:22.07.2025 18:44:23
[ad_2]
Source link