CRL.M.C./5450/2025 of INDERJEET ANAND Vs STATE OF DELHI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 5450/2025 & CRL.M.A. 23398/2025,CRL.M.A. 23399/2025CRL.M.A. 23399/2025

INDERJEET ANAND

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Mr. Ankit Pandey, Mr. Yashaswini Goel & Ms. Prashasti Singh, Advs. Ankit Pandey, Mr. Yashaswini Goel & Ms. Prashasti Singh, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State SI Abhilash, PS-Nangloi SI Shubham, PS- Gandhi

Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R R11.08.2025

1.The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 304/2022 dated 09.06.2022, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, for offences under Sections 3/14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, Sections 75/79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Sections 16/17/18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Sections 370/374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.The FIR was registered way back on 09.06.2022 and the investigation has since been concluded which led to filing of the chargesheet on 21.09.2023.

3.On being pointedly asked, it is informed that the matter is

now listed before the learned Trial Court for arguments on charge.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been erroneously registered without verifying the age of the victim. He submits that the victim was employed by the petitioner after verification of his age from the Aadhar Card, which indicates that the victim was more than 19 years of age.

5.The petitioner has the remedy of addressing arguments and raising all issues before the learned Trial Court while arguing on charge. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the FIR was registered way back in the year 2022 and the chargesheet was also filed in the year 2023. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR at the very inception.

6.While this Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings even after filing of chargesheet to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of law, it is well settled that ordinarily, this Court should be cautious to exercise inherent jurisdiction and interfere with the proceedings after chargesheet has been filed after thorough investigation [Ref. State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Others: (2022) 16 SCC 703].

7.This Court, in such circumstances, does not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition at this stage.

8.The present petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments and issues before the learned Trial Court while addressing arguments on charge.

9.Considering that the chargesheet was filed way back on 21.09.2023, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite hearing arguments on charge.

10.The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

11.Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court in case any grievance remains in future.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

AUGUST 11, 2025/“SS”