% 08.05.2025

1. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks quashing of FIR No. 263/20231 dated 13th June, 2023, registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar for offences under Sections 447 / 448 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,2 as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Subsequently, the impugned FIR was amended and Section 380 of IPC was also added.

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly outlined as follows:

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 investigating agency, the Petitioner could not be apprehended, prompting initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 2.8. On 22nd February, 2025, during execution of the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, the Petitioner was arrested in accordance with the law. 2.9. A charge sheet was filed against Raj Kumar Mishra on 15th January, 2025. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, investigation remains pending.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as the allegations made are false and fabricated, and do not disclose the alleged offences against the Petitioner. He urges the following in support of his petition:

Reliance is placed upon extensive documentation, including a General Power of Attorney, an Agreement to Sell, an Affidavit, Payment Receipts, and Registered Wills all executed on 1st January, 2001, proving Petitioner's legitimate ownership. Consequently, the allegation of criminal trespass collapses entirely.

3.2. The Petitioner has filed a civil suit (CS No. 901/2022) against Raj Kumar Mishra, Jyoti Bhardwaj, and Kamlesh Bhardwaj regarding the subject property. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court submitted a report dated 14th November, 2022, expressly stating that no party was in actual physical possession. This undermines any allegations of dispossession or criminal trespass levelled against the Petitioner. 3.3. The impugned FIR was registered 8 months after the incident. Moreover, the complaint dated 14th October, 2022, initially submitted by Kamlesh Bhardwaj, materially differs from the version presented in the FIR, CRL.M.C. 379/2025 Page 4 of 11 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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 particularly regarding the allegedly stolen household items such as a chair, table, cupboard, and a lock with a chain. These accusations, are demonstrably contrived and appear to be nothing more than afterthoughts. 3.4. The Complainant is attempting to turn a civil dispute into a criminal matter in order to harass the Petitioner and exert pressure to comply with the Complainant's illegal demands.

4. Per contra, counsel for the Complainant opposes the present petition presenting a sharply contrasting narrative grounded on the following contentions:

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 Chand Sharma have separately initiated proceedings against the Petitioner in this Court and before the Additional District Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, which demonstrates that Petitioners claims are dubious.

5. Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State, informs that a chargesheet has already been filed against the co-accused, Raj Kumar Mishra, and the Petitioner himself has been arrested pursuant to due process. He further assures the Court that a supplementary charge sheet against the Petitioner is imminent and shall shortly be filed before the Trial Court.

6. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the Petitioners. At the outset, it is pertinent to emphasise that the extraordinary power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, judiciously, and only when compelling circumstances so warrant. The Supreme Court, in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others,5 succinctly summarized the legal principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which may be briefly recounted as follows:

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not"

7. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v.

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 State (NCT of Delhi),6 referencing several judgments, has delineated the criteria for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at a preliminary stage:

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 substantiate the same.'

16. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint.

17. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pretrial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process."

[Emphasis Supplied]

8. Applying these settled principles to the facts at hand, it becomes evident that the submissions raised by the Petitioner are predominantly their defences, largely premised upon the assertion of ownership documents and pending civil litigation. Such contentions, as persuasive as they might be in civil adjudication, cannot automatically discredit or negate the allegations detailed in the FIR. Indeed, the Petitioner's claims, notably his reliance on ownership documents and assertions of civil possession disputes, inherently involve disputed questions of fact that would require determination on the basis of evidence to be adduced by parties, precisely the function of a trial court. Any interference by this Court would be premature and prejudice the rights of the complainant.

9. Moreover, the timeline between the incident and the FIR, is not by itself indicative of mala fide intent or fabrication, especially considering that the Complainant promptly reported the initial dispute to the authorities.

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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 Further, discrepancies highlighted between the complaint dated 14 th October, 2022, and the FIR lodged subsequently do not conclusively demonstrate fabrication or malicious intent. The effect of alleged variations between different accounts of the Complainant is an issue to be considered by the Trial Court; and not sufficient ground for quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this priliminary stage.

10. Significantly, the allegations levelled, encompassing both trespass and theft, clearly outline offences cognizable under IPC . The Complainant's assertions are supported by documentary evidence spanning several decades and corroborated preliminarily by independent witness statements. Thus, on the prima facie evaluation of these allegations, this Court cannot deem the FIR improbable or absurd to the extent that would warrant the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash. Additionally, mere existence or pendency of civil proceedings concerning the same subject matter does not ipso facto provide a ground for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.7 Criminal law and civil remedies operate distinctly and independently, and the mere availability of a civil remedy does not inherently preclude criminal accountability, particularly where the factual allegations suggest acts beyond mere civil wrongs.

11. Consequently, this Court refrains from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR at this preliminary juncture. It is clarified, however, that the observations herein should not be construed as indicative of the merits of the allegations or the Petitioner's 7 See also: Punit Beriwala v. State NCT of Delhi , 2025 INSC 582 CRL.M.C. 379/2025 Page 10 of 11 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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34 defences thereto. The Petitioner shall remain fully entitled to raise all factual and legal defences available to him before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

12. Dismissed.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 8, 2025/ab CRL.M.C. 379/2025 Page 11 of 11 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 29/06/2025 at 22:10:34