Delhi High Court – Orders
Shiv Agrawal & Ors vs State National Capital Territory Of … on 19 December, 2024
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5932/2023, CRL.M.A. 22291/2023 & CRL.M.A.
28318/2024
SHIV AGRAWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Mr. Kapil Dev
Yadav, Mr. Govil Upadhyaya and
Ms. Kirti Gupta, Advocates
versus
STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
THROUGH SHO .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State
with the Investigating Officer SI Ravi
Rana.
Mr. Sermon Rawat, Mr.Vansh
Kapoor, Mr. Harshit Jain and Ms.
Aastha Vishwakarma, Advocates for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 19.12.2024
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC“) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)] has been filed on
behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR bearing number
0259/2017 dated 23rd May, 2017, registered under Sections
379/356/342/506/420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter “IPC“) at Police Station – Saket, South Delhi and also for
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:52
setting aside of the order dated 23rd May, 2017, passed by the learned
ACMM/South/Saket in case number 6204/2017, directing the SHO
concerned to registered FIR.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that
a mere reading of the contents made in the FIR shows that no case is made
out for commission of the offences punishable under Sections
379/356/342/506/420/468/471/34 of the IPC.
3. It is submitted that since the petitioners had lodged an FIR bearing
number 544/2016 dated 17th August, 2016 against the complainant in which
the investigating agency, after completion of investigation, has filed the
charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken by the concerned Court, the
aforesaid FIR bearing number 0259/2017 was lodged on the basis of false
and fabricated story as a counter blast. He submitted that the instant FIR is
nothing but a gross misuse of the process of law and lodged with malicious
and mala fide intention.
4. It is submitted that the instant FIR was registered in pursuance of the
order dated 23rd May, 2017, passed by the concerned learned Magistrate on
an application filed under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. It is submitted that
the said order was passed without application of judicial mind.
5. It is submitted that the instant FIR was registered by the police on the
basis of the order passed by the Magistrate concerned without any material
being available which can be connected to the petitioners with the
allegations as made in the said FIR. It is prayed that in view of the aforesaid,
the entire FIR may be quashed by this Court while exercising power under
Section 528 of the BNSS. In order to strengthen his arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:52
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0846/2023 and in particular relied upon
paragraphs 28 and 29 of the same.
6. It is submitted that the instant FIR has been lodged with mala fide,
malicious, illegal and vexatious intentions as the same has been instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners and
other accused persons so that the petitioners do not pursue their FIR. It is
further submitted that the in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the instant
FIR may be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State vehemently opposed
the instant petition and submitted that instant petition is filed belatedly and
after a gap of six years of the registration of the FIR. It is submitted that the
order dated 23rd May, 2017 was passed by the Court concerned on the
ground that there are sufficient material on record to establish the
allegations made in the complaint. In pursuance of the said order, the police
has registered the FIR on the same day, i.e., 23rd May, 2017.
8. Learned APP appearing for the State, on a query made by the Court,
explained that due to non-receipt of the FSL report and COVID-19
pandemic, there is a delay in filing the charge-sheet. It is submitted that as
per the FSL report, it is evident that the petitioners herein have fabricated
and forged documents and signatures respectively, and the signature in
question does not match with that of the complainant.
9. Learned APP submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners in
the FIR lodged by him against the complainant are about siphoning of
money of the company and there is no evidence on record as such. It
submitted that in the supplementary charge-sheet, in paragraph no. 7, it is
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:53
clarified that no role in siphoning of money of the complainant has been
assigned. She accordingly submitted that this case does not fall within the
principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court “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”.
10. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the instant petition itself
is a gross misuse of process of law and may be dismissed with heavy costs.
11. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the complainant
vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that there is no force
in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the
purposes of quashing the instant FIR.
12. It is also submitted that the petitioners did not challenge the
impugned order and the FIR for six years. Learned counsel for the
complainant submitted that there is no ground or cogent reasons for this
Court to exercise powers under Section 528 of BNSS and the prayer of
quashing the instant FIR may be rejected.
13. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is
wrong to say that the complainant has not siphoned of money of the
complainant. He referred to paragraph no. 16 of the supplementary charge-
sheet dated 20th September, 2016, and submitted that cognizance has already
been taken against the complainant in FIR no. 544/2016.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents
made in the petition as well as the Status Report filed by the State, the
charge-sheet which has been handed over today for perusal of the Court and
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:53
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Court has also perused the
contents made in the supplementary charge-sheet filed in the FIR no.
544/2016 which was lodged by the petitioners against the complainant.
15. As per the law, to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court has to be fully
satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that it would lead
to the conclusion that the defence is based on sound, reasonable and
indubitable facts, and that the material so produced is such as would clearly
defeat or negate the allegations contained in the FIR without conducting
trial. Further, as per Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC
330, the material placed on record has to be of such impeccable quality that
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the accusations
as false. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, the High Court may
be persuaded by its judicial conscience to prevent the abuse of the process
of law.
16. During the course of arguments, learned APP handed over the charge-
sheet for perusal of the Court. Having perused the charge-sheet, this Court
finds that there are evidences collected by the police to establish the
allegations made in the FIR.
17. The chargsheet dated 23rd May, 2017 clearly state that in terms of the
investigation, it is crystal clear and established that the blackberry mobile
phone, which was submitted by the accused company for investigation of
FIR no. 544/2016 is owned by the complainant and the company has no
right to retain the same.
18. The contents of the chargsheet further state that the company also
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:53
accepted the presence of complainant and other alleged persons on the date
of incident, i.e., 16th August, 2016. Therefore, the investigating agency
added Sections 392/411 of the IPC.
19. The chargesheet has also taken note of the fact that the accused
company has mentioned in his reply that they had called the complainant for
account settlement on the day of the incident, however, as to why and for
what purpose the mobile of phone of the complainant was retained remained
unexplained.
20. Therefore, taking into consideration the entirety of the matter,
including the material evidence available on record collected by the police
during investigation, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient
material is there on record to establish the allegations as made in the FIR
against the petitioners, which was lodged in pursuance of the order passed
by the learned Magistrate pursuant to a complaint made under Section 156
(3) CrPC. Further, no contention has been put forth on behalf of the
petitioners to justify the delay in challenging the impugned order and
seeking quashing of the FIR.
21. Thus, taking into account the fact that chargesheet has been filed and
the contents of the FSL report state that the petitioners herein have
fabricated and forged documents and signatures respectively, and the
signature in question does not match with that of the complainant; this Court
is of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition seeking quashing
of the FIR as the allegations made therein prima facie make out a case
against the petitioners for commission of the offences.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that this
Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:53
(now Section 528 of the BNSS).
23. Accordingly, the instant petition, along with the pending applications,
if any, stand dismissed.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 19, 2024
NA/ryp
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/01/2025 at 23:54:53