Petitioner sought quashing of FIR for digital fraud. Petitioner had no appearance. State revealed petitioner is habitual offender with four prior NCRP reports and accused of defrauding others in similar transactions. Court dismissed quashing petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~36
ABUL KALAM .....Petitioner
Through: None
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC SI Lovely Shokeen PS Cyber/Shahdara
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
O R D E R % 10.03.2025
None appears on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent no. 2.
Learned ASC states that the State is opposing this quashing petition in FIR No. 73/2024 registered at P.S. Cyber Shahdara, under Section 420 IPC, based on settlement. He states that four (4) more reports against the Petitioner have been received on National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) of similar digital frauds. He states that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and in similar transactions he has defrauded at least four other victims.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 10, 2025/ hp/AM
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 17/03/2025 at 11:23:17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 420 IPC where the petitioner is a habitual offender accused of multiple similar frauds.
ABUL KALAM
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
ANR
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
