WRIT PETITION 184 of 2023

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 1899/2023PANKAJ GOEL

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Bipin Kumar and Mr. SureshChandra Sharma, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) withMr Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar,Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. ChaviLazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,Advocates.Mr. S.K. Pathak and Mr. ShobhitSharma, Advocates for Complainant.Mr. Sunil, SI, PS-Adarsh Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

%12.02.2025

1.The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, 1950 seeks quashing of FIR No. 184/2023 dated 5[th]February, 2023registered under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 atP.S. Adarsh Nagar, North West District, Delhi.

2.When the present petition was filed, the matter was still underinvestigation. Subsequently, chargesheet has been filed wherein Mr.Chander Muni Tyagi has been arrayed as an accused in column No. 11. Mr.Pankaj Goel, the Petitioner, is shown in column No. 12 along with two otherco-accused, Mr Neeraj Mittal and Mr. Suresh Kumar Goel @ Bhalla.

3.The chargesheet was submitted before the Tril Court on 20[th]May,2024. However, it transpires that Trial Court, after considering thechargesheet, has taken cognizance and summons issued all the four accusedwho are been mentioned either in columns No. 11 or 12. The Court isinformed that after summoning, the Petitioners have filed their bail bondsand the Trial Court has commenced hearing arguments on charge. Partarguments have been heard and the matter is now listed for furtherarguments on 2[nd]April, 2025.

4.In light of the foregoing, it appears that the prosecution has not foundany material to implicate the Petitioner and categorized him as an ‘accusednot charge-sheeted’. Despite this, the Trial Court, while acting within itsjurisdiction, has taken cognizance against the Petitioner.

5.In view of the above development, the allegations made in the presentpetition assailing the FIR No. 184/2023, cannot form the basis for itsquashing, as the FIR has already culminated in chargesheet and asubsequent summoning order. The Trial Court, for reasons not broughtbefore the Court in the present petition, has taken view to summon thePetitioner. Accordingly, the relief sought in the present petition cannot begranted as it would amount to expressing opinion of accepting thechargesheet as it is.

6.Thus, the Court is not inclined to allow the present petition for thereasons stated above. It is clarified that the Court has not examined themerits of the case. The Petitioner shall be free to take recourse to urge all thegrounds urged in the present petition before the Trial Court at the stage offraming of charge. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to take recourse toany other legal proceedings as are available under law against the

summoning order, if so advised, which if filed, shall be considered on itsown merits, in accordance with law.

7.Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

FEBRUARY 12, 2025nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J