Delhi High Court - Orders
Sudhir Bhargava & Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 17 September, 2025
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1633/2025
SUDHIR BHARGAVA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sidharth Agarwal, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Pillai, Mr.
Abhiroop Saha, Ms. Bismita Diwan,
Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI
Shah Faisal, PS-New Ashok Nagar.
Dr. G.V. Rao, Senior Advocate with
Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, Mr. Mohit
Dhulera, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 17.09.2025 CRL.M.A. 27929/2025 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 27928/2025 (for necessary directions)
1. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking to place certain facts on records and praying for necessary directions.
2. Petitioners preferred CRL. M.C. 1633/2025 seeking directions for quashing of FIR no. 386/2022 under Sections 420/406/34 IPC, PS New Ashok Nagar as also the impugned orders dated 03.10.2024 and 17.02.2025 passed by the Ld. ACJM (East), Karkardooma in CR no. 5422/2022 titled "State Vs. Unknown & Ors." whereby consequent to the filing of the closure 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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43 report dated 27.07.2022, the Ld. Trial Court issued directions for further investigation.
3. The submissions of the petitioners are succinctly captured in the order dated 07.03.2025 which is reproduced hereunder:
6. Mr. Aggarwal submits that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and pertains to one Will of the father and two Wills of the mother, of the parties.
7. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is the brother of the respondent no.2. Their father had executed a Will dated 11.08.1993. The father passed away on 01.02.1994.
8. The respondent no.2 had filed a Civil Suit challenging the Will of the father in the year 2010 in the Civil Court at Kanpur, U.P. The suit was, however, dismissed in the year 2012 on the ground of limitation. The judgment so passed by the Civil Court was challenged by the respondent no.2 before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court also dismissed the First Appeal in the year 2014. The challenge was thereafter taken by the respondent no.2 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP, which was also dismissed in the year 2014. Subsequently, the review filed by the respondent no.2 before the High Court was also dismissed in the year 2016.
9. He further submits that likewise, the mother of the parties had also executed two Registered Wills - one in the year 2001 and subsequently, other in the year 2009. He submits that the respondent no.2 had also challenged these two Wills by filing a suit for declaration in the Civil Court at Kanpur. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed seeking interim relief. However, the same was declined by the Civil Court in the year 2011. The challenge made to the said order of Civil Court before the Allahabad High Court was also dismissed in the year 2011 itself. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed in the year 2012, with a direction to conclude the trial within a period of four months. Later, the respondent no.2 amended her 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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43 suit for declaration and converted the same into a suit for partition.
10. He further submits that even the parties have litigated before the CLB, in as much as, the respondent no.2 had filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 in May 2011. However, the learned CLB also dismissed the said petition in the year 2013 and the challenge against the same made before the Allahabad High Court, was also dismissed in the year 2017. Subsequently, the SLP filed against the said order of the High Court was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. He contends that after so much of litigation both in the Civil Court, as well as, before the learned CLB, the FIR came to be registered only on 05.05.2022 making similar allegations that the Wills of the father, as well as, the two Wills of the mother are forged. He submits that the civil proceedings were not at all disclosed in the complaint which culminated into an FIR.
12. He submits that even the police after investigation had filed a closure report. During the investigation, the police also recorded the statement of the attesting witnesses to the Wills. He submits that in the above factual backdrop, the present FIR is an absolute abuse of the process of the Court and even the impugned orders passed are also not sustainable.
13. In view of the above, issue notice. The learned APP for the State accepts notice. Likewise, the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent no.2, who happens to be the husband of the respondent no.2, also accepts notice.
14. Let Status Report/reply be filed before the next date.
15. List on 19.03.2025, when the prayer for the interim relief will be considered.
4. The Ld. Senior Counsel who appears for the petitioners submits that the Ld. Predecessor Bench, taking note of the above submissions was pleased to orally direct the Ld. APP and the Investigating Officer present in Court to not take any further steps in the investigation pursuant to the orders of the Ld. Trial Court till further orders from this Court.
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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43
5. He further states that owing to the change of roster the matter was placed before this bench on 19.03.2025. Since the status report was not part of the digital record, the Court issued directions to respondent no. 1 to ensure that the same is made part of the digital record. He states that upon being informed by the petitioners regarding the oral directions of the previous bench, this bench after confirming the same from the Ld. APP/Investigating Officer was pleased to continue the oral directions and re- notify the matter. According to him such order was passed in the presence of the counsel of respondent no. 2.
6. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer filed the status report dated 03.04.2025 before the Trial Court informing therein about the oral directions issued by this Court in CRL. M.C. 1633/2025. In view of such directions, the Trial Court adjourned proceedings to 04.08.2025. Even though the husband of respondent no. 2 was present before the Trial Court at the time of hearing he did not raise any objection to the submissions of the IO.
7. On 30.07.2025 the bench of this Court did not assemble in the pre- lunch session and therefore, the petition got adjourned to 18.12.2025.
8. The Ld. Senior Counsel submits that during the intervening period from April-August, 2025 no objection or grievance was ever raised by respondent no. 2 or her husband in relation to oral directions previously issued by this Court, so much so in her reply to the petition filed on 08.07.2025, she did not dispute the contents of status report filed by respondent no. 1 before the Trial Court on 03.04.2025. However, on 04.08.2025, when the matter came up before the Trial Court, the husband of respondent no. 2 made blatantly false and misleading statement to the effect 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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43 that no oral stay had ever been granted by this Court. In view of the said objection, the Ld Trial Court directed respondent no. 1 to seek clarification regarding the stay of investigation and had re-notified the matter for 25.09.2025.
9. It has been submitted that the statement made by the husband of respondent no. 2 before the Trial Court on 04.08.2025 that no oral stay was granted by this Court is false, misleading and belied by the record. He is playing fraud on the Trial Court by making false submissions on derogation of this Court's directions.
10. The Ld. Senior Counsel submits that respondent no. 2 represented by her husband/power of attorney deliberately withheld the material facts at the time of registration of impugned FIR by failing to disclose pending civil proceedings before the Kanpur Court involving the same subject matter. He submits that taking note of the previous litigation between the parties, after investigation, the police filed the cancellation report. He states that otherwise also the will is to be proved by the attesting witnesses and the opinion of the hand writing expert is a weak kind of evidence and is not a conclusive proof of the execution of the will and therefore petitioners have good case and the impugned orders are liable to be stayed till the pending of the present petition.
11. The Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 states that no oral orders regarding the stay was issued. Placing reliance on Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel and Another (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 662, he submits that oral directions cause serious misgivings and such a procedure is open to grave abuse. He further submits that there is no justification for the stay of further investigation inasmuch as 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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43 the directions are only for the purpose of seeking the opinion of the hand writing expert and it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners and therefore, there is no ground for staying of the operation of the orders dated 03.10.2024 and 17.02.2025.
12. The Court takes note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salimbhai (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practise of passing oral orders. The Hon'ble Court took the view that judicial assessments change with the roster and in the absence of any written record of what has transpired in the course of a judicial proceeding, it would set a dangerous precedent if the parties and the Investigating Officer were expected to rely on unrecorded oral observations.
13. Both parties have challenged each others submissions as regards the passing of oral directions halting further investigation. Be that as it may, without going into the said controversy, the Court proceeds to decide the question of stay of operation of the orders dated 03.10.2024 and 17.12.2025, based on the submissions of the parties.
14. Petitioner no. 1 is the brother of respondent no. 2. They are litigating with each other in respect of wills executed by their late father and mother. The challenge to the will of the father by respondent no. 2 was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any success. The Challenge to the wills of the mother of the parties is pending before the Kanpur Court.
15. Prima facie, the Court is of the view that the wills are to be proved by the attesting witnesses. In view of the same, the question as to whether in such circumstances the opinion of handwriting expert would be of any assistance in the investigation, needs to be considered in the present petition. In case the investigating agency proceeds to conduct further investigation in 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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43 terms of the directions contained in the impugned order dated 03.10.2024, the present petition may become infructuous to that extent. Hence, considering the same, it is directed that the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 be kept in abeyance till the next date.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/lks 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 22/09/2025 at 22:29:43