Dismissed¶17

Pankaj Goel v. the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2025W.P.(CRL)/1899/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR dismissed after chargesheet and summoning order - W.P.(CRL) 1899/2023, High Court of Delhi, Sanjeev Narula, J., 12.02.2025; FIR No. 184/2023 dated 05.02.2023, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC; Article 226 writ petition; chargesheet column No. 11 (Chander Muni Tyagi) and column No. 12 (Pankaj Goel, Neeraj Mittal, Suresh Kumar Goel @ Bhalla); 'accused not charge-sheeted'; Trial Court cognizance and summons; bail bonds; arguments on charge part-heard, listed 02.04.2025; liberty to challenge summoning order at framing of charge.

What did the court decide?

Since the FIR has already culminated in a chargesheet and a subsequent summoning order, the allegations made in the present petition assailing FIR No. 184/2023 cannot form the basis for its quashing. ¶5

Pankaj Goel Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 184/2023 dated 5th February, 2023 (Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC, P.S. Adarsh Nagar) should be quashed pursuant to the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

¶8

Court's answer

Since the FIR has already culminated in a chargesheet and a subsequent summoning order, the allegations made in the present petition assailing FIR No. 184/2023 cannot form the basis for its quashing.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The relief sought (quashing of the FIR) cannot be granted, as it would amount to expressing an opinion of accepting the chargesheet as it is.

¶5

Key takeaways

The prosecution has not found any material to implicate the Petitioner and categorized him as an 'accused not charge-sheeted'; despite this, the Trial Court, while acting within its jurisdiction, has taken cognizance against the Petitioner.ratio¶4
The Court is not inclined to allow the present petition for the reasons stated, and clarifies that it has not examined the merits of the case.ratio¶6
The Petitioner shall be free to urge all the grounds urged in the present petition before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.; 12.02.2025) dismissed W.P.(CRL) 1899/2023, a petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of FIR No. 184/2023 dated 05.02.2023 registered under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at P.S. Adarsh Nagar. After the petition was filed, a chargesheet was filed naming Chander Muni Tyagi in column No. 11 and the Petitioner Pankaj Goel, with co-accused Neeraj Mittal and Suresh Kumar Goel @ Bhalla, in column No. 12; though the prosecution categorized the Petitioner as an 'accused not charge-sheeted', the Trial Court took cognizance within its jurisdiction and summoned all four accused (chargesheet submitted 20.05.2024). Bail bonds were furnished and arguments on charge are part-heard, with the matter listed for 02.04.2025. Holding that the FIR had already culminated in a chargesheet and a subsequent summoning order, the Court held the petition's allegations could not ground quashing, and that granting relief would amount to expressing an opinion of accepting the chargesheet as it is; the merits of the case were expressly not examined. The Petitioner was left free to urge all grounds before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge and to pursue any other legal proceedings against the summoning order, to be considered on their own merits. Petition dismissed.

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 1899/2023 PANKAJ GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar and Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) with Mr Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates. Mr. S.K. Pathak and Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Advocates for Complainant. Mr. Sunil, SI, PS-Adarsh Nagar.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 12.02.2025 1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeks quashing of FIR No. 184/2023 dated 5^th February, 2023 registered under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, North West District, Delhi.

¶9

When the present petition was filed, the matter was still under investigation. Subsequently, a 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 other co-accused, Mr Neeraj Mittal and Mr. Suresh Kumar Goel @ Bhalla.

¶10

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 02/07/2025 at 01:11:57

¶11

The chargesheet was submitted before the Tril Court on 20^th May, 2024. However, it transpires that Trial Court, after considering the chargesheet, has taken cognizance and summons issued all the four accused who are been mentioned either in columns No. 11 or 12. The Court is informed that after summoning, the Petitioners have filed their bail bonds and the Trial Court has commenced hearing arguments on charge. Part arguments have been heard and the matter is now listed for further arguments on 2^nd April, 2025.

¶12

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

¶13

In view of the above development, the allegations made in the present petition assailing the FIR No. 184/2023, cannot form the basis for its quashing, as the FIR has already culminated in a chargesheet and a subsequent summoning order. The Trial Court, for reasons not brought before the Court in the present petition, has taken a view to summon the Petitioner. Accordingly, the relief sought in the present petition cannot be granted as it would amount to expressing opinion of accepting the chargesheet as it is.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶18

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶19

FEBRUARY 12, 2025 nk

¶20

Pankaj Goel v. the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Goel v. the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babli Vs Satate of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bhupendra Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Jyoti Saxena Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Alam Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Fairaz & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd. Danish Vs State(Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Satender Alias Gajender Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Nirmal Sidhu Vs State through SHO Ps Domestic Airport Delhi

Babli Vs Satate of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jyoti Saxena Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pramod Goel Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Vinod Kumar Bindal Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Anr.

M/S. Gurjar Krishi Sewa Kendra Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sunair Hotels Ltd. & Ors. Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.