Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr Bina Modi vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 March, 2026
$~47 and 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1963/2026
DR BINA MODI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Amita Katragadda, Ms. Surabhi
Khattar, Mr. Nikhil Varshney, Ms.
Kamakshi Puri, Mr. Ishu Gupta, Mr.
Sriharsh Raj and Ms. Pallavi,
Agarwal, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for the
State with Ms. Upasna Bakshi and
Mr. Arvind Aggarwal, Advs.
51
CRL.M.C. 1986/2026
DR LALIT BHASIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Risu Agrawala, Mr. Preetam Vir
Agarwal, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Mr. Danish
A. and Mr. Nilay Gupta, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for the
State with Ms. Upasna Bakshi, Adv.
Insp. Niraj Kumar, PS: Sarita Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 18.03.2026 CRL.M.A. 8084/2026 in CRL.M.C. 1963/2026 (Exemption) CRL.M.A. 8151/2026 in CRL.M.C. 1986/2026 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The present application is disposed of.
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 19/03/2026 at 21:32:11 CRL.M.A. 8083/2026 in CRL.M.C. 1963/2026 (Lengthy synopsis and list of dates)
3. By virtue of the present application, the appellant seeks to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates and events.
4. For the reasons stated therein, the present application is allowed and the same are taken on record.
5. The present application is disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 8085/2026 in CRL.M.C. 1963/2026 (Seeking leave to file electronic records through pen drive)
6. By virtue of the present application, the petitioner seeks permission to file electronic record by way of pen drive.
7. In terms of Rule 24 of Chapter XI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, let the electronic record by way of an encrypted pen drive medium with a hash value in a non-edited form be filed before the Registry within a period of four weeks.
8. Let the same accordingly form a part of the record of the present petition by way of an electronic folder in such a manner that it can be opened to view by this Court as and when required. Also let the hash value be kept separately by the Registry on the file.
9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of. CRL.M.C. 1963/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8082/2026 (Stay) CRL.M.C. 1986/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8150/2026 (Stay)
10. By virtue of the present petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, seek quashing of the order dated 10.02.2026 (impugned order) passed by the learned JMFC, South- East District, Saket Courts, Delhi (learned Trial Court) as well as the 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 19/03/2026 at 21:32:11 summons dated 12.02.2026 (summons) arising therefrom in Cr. Cases 2363/2025 entitled 'State vs. Sh. Surendra Prasad & Ors.' arising out FIR No.219/2024 dated 01.06.2024 registered under Sections 325/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS: Sarita Vihar.
11. Before commencing arguments, learned senior counsels for the petitioners have handed over an iPad in which the CCTV footage [Annexure P4], which is forming an integral part of the circumstances leading to the filing of the aforesaid FIR, has been shown to this Court. The same has been perused.
12. It is the case of the petitioners that as evident from the CCTV footage which is the whole basis of the alleged altercation between the complainant/ respondent no.2 and the co-accused that the petitioners were never a part thereof, and hence, there was no material of any nature which could have prompted the learned Trial Court to pass the impugned order as under:
"... ...the court is of the view that after perusal of the chargesheet, statements record during investigation and material placed on record, although accused no. 2 and accused no.3 have been in column no.12 of the charge- sheet, there exists sufficient material indicating their prima facie involvement in the alleged offence."
13. In support thereof, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel submits that the impugned order as well as the summons issued to the petitioners under Sections 325/341 IPC are bad in law and wholly unsustainable, as no acts of such nature can be attributable to either of the petitioners, and so, even the concerned IO had put them in Column Nos.11 and 12 in the charge-sheet dated 26.02.2025.
14. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel further submits that the 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 19/03/2026 at 21:32:11 learned Trial Court, while disagreeing therewith, has drawn conclusions based on the assumption that the IO did not have the means to "...exonerate..." anyone, as also the IO was acting as a "... ...deciding authority in a case that he is investigating... ...", which according to him was beyond his means. He submits that barring the aforesaid, there is no whisper of any cogent reasoning for issuance of summons to the petitioners, and even though the learned Trial Court has taken the very same CCTV footage shown to this Court into account, wherein it is clear that the alleged altercation did not involve the petitioners in any manner, the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without any basis and upon an erroneous appreciation thereof, and is, hence, liable to be set aside.
15. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1986/2026 has also adopted the very same arguments addressed by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel.
16. Issue notice.
17. Learned APP for the State accepts notice. He seeks, and is granted, a period of four weeks for filing the Status Report.
18. Upon the petitioners taking requisite steps within a period of one week, issue notice to the respondent no.2 through all permissible modes, returnable on 29.07.2026.
19. Learned (senior) counsels for the parties are also called upon to file their respective written synopsis not exceeding five pages, at least one week prior to the next date of hearing, giving a chronological list of dates and events and relevant documents, if any, along with duly highlighted judgments setting out the propositions of law therein, they wish to rely upon.
20. In the meanwhile, considering the facts and circumstances involved, 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 19/03/2026 at 21:32:11 especially the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court qua the material on record, there shall be a stay of the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 as well as the summons dated 12.02.2026 till the next date of hearing.
21. Renotify on 29.07.2026.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J MARCH 18, 2026/Ab 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 19/03/2026 at 21:32:11