[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rajat & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 9 February, 2026
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.02.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1119/2026, CRL.M.A. 4421/2026 & CRL.M.A.
4420/2026
RAJAT & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sauraj Yadav and Mr.
Satyavijay Yadav, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP
for State with WSI Sharanya. S,
PS Jamia Nagar and WSI Soni
Lal, PS Nabi Karim.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.328/2022 of Police Station
Patel Nagar for the offence under Section 498A/406/323/34/376/377/506
IPC on merits.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned
FIR is based on complete falsehood, insofar as there was no allegation of
rape or unnatural sex initially, but only in her statement under Section 164
CrPC, the complainant de facto levelled those allegations. It is also argued
that on same set of facts, two separate FIRs were registered by the police of
CRL.M.C. 1119/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
Digitally Signed 5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.09 17:57:57 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.02.2026
17:57:41
different police stations; one FIR is No.227/2021 of PS Nabi Karim while
the other FIR is the one presently impugned. It is further submitted that
quashing of FIR No.227/2021 also was sought earlier and this court in
CRL.M.C. 775/2026 by way of order dated 30.01.2026 stayed till next date
the proceedings arising out of that FIR. That being so, according to learned
counsel for petitioner, proceedings arising out of the FIR impugned in the
present case also deserve to be stayed.
3. Learned APP for State assisted by SI Sharanya. S accepts notice and
opposes the petition, taking me through the detailed statement of prosecutrix
recorded under Section 164 CrPC on oath before the magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that since in the originally
filed complaint dated 27.07.2021, there was no allegation of rape or
unnatural sex, the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are not
sustainable and the same are liable to be quashed.
5. So far as FIR No.227/2021 is concerned, the same was registered on
complaint dated 26.07.2021 of complainant de facto alleging offences under
Section 323/341/506/34 IPC. On the other hand, the FIR impugned in the
present case was registered on complaint dated 27.07.2021 of complainant
de facto for offence under Section 498A/406/323/34 IPC, to which the
offences under Section 376/377/506/34 IPC were added on the basis of
statement of complainant de facto recorded on oath by the magistrate.
CRL.M.C. 1119/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
Digitally Signed cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.09 17:57:46 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:09.02.2026
17:57:41
6. I have examined the detailed statement of complainant de facto under
Section 164 CrPC, which levels extremely serious allegations including an
effort to somehow push the complainant de facto into flesh trade. Even in
the complaint dated 27.07.2021, which led to the registration of the FIR for
offence under Section 498A/406/323/34 IPC, the complainant de facto
levelled specific allegations.
7. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners that statement under
Section 164 CrPC of the complainant de facto is false is yet to be tested
through trial. It is trite that this court in the proceedings under Section 482
CrPC (currently Section 528 BNSS) cannot conduct a mini trial. At present,
it is only the allegations mentioned in the FIR and the statement recorded
under Section 164 CrPC which have to be considered. The same do make
out a prima facie case for offences mentioned above.
8. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case to quash FIR No.328/2022 of
Police Station Patel Nagar for the offence under Section
498A/406/323/34/376/377/506 IPC. The petition and the accompanying
application are dismissed.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.09 17:57:27 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 09, 2026/ry
CRL.M.C. 1119/2026 Page 3 of 3 pages
