Disposed¶19

Virender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC23 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/6329/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 6329/2026; Virender Singh v. Union of India and Ors; CRPF; dismissal; departmental proceedings; reinstatement; reconsideration; representation; Section 354 IPC; conviction; acquittal; High Court of Meghalaya; Apex Court; six weeks; Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Amit Sharma; 23.07.2026

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation (seeking reinstatement/reconsideration of the dismissal) within six weeks and communicate the decision; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge an adverse decision in accordance with law. ¶19

Virender Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose conviction under Section 354 IPC was subsequently set aside, is entitled to reinstatement or reconsideration of his dismissal from CRPF service.

¶17

Court's answer

The Court accepted the respondent's statement that the petitioner's representation shall be decided within six weeks, having regard to the claim in the petition, and disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to communicate the decision so taken within six weeks.

¶19

Key takeaways

If the decision on the representation is adverse to the petitioner, it shall be open to him to question it in accordance with law; the merits of reinstatement were left open.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 6329/2026 (Delhi High Court, decided 23.07.2026, Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Amit Sharma): Virender Singh, employed with the Central Reserve Police Force, was convicted by the Trial Court on 21.07.2023 for an offence under Section 354 IPC (one year's imprisonment, three months' additional in default of Rs. 10,000/- fine); the Revisional Court confirmed the conviction, but the High Court of Meghalaya set it aside on 18.07.2025 on the complainant's consent that the prosecution had arisen from a misunderstanding (the petitioner separately describes his acquittal as being by the Apex Court). In the interregnum, on 22.03.2024, the respondent awarded dismissal in departmental proceedings. Without deciding the merits, the Bench accepted the respondent's undertaking that the petitioner's representation for reinstatement/reconsideration of the dismissal would be decided within six weeks, disposed of the petition with a direction to communicate the decision within six weeks, and reserved the petitioner's liberty to question an adverse decision in accordance with law.

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6329/2026

¶4

VIRENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava (Senior Panel Counsel) with Mr. Abhishek Pandey (GP), Mr. Robert Laishram, Advocate Mr. Vinod Sawant (Law Officer), Inspector Athurv, CRPF

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 23.07.2026

¶10

Heard.

¶11

While in the employment of the respondent/Central Reserve Police Force, for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 21^st July, 2023, imposing imprisonment of one year and, in case of default in payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, additional imprisonment for three months.

¶12

It appears that, post-conviction, the petitioner took recourses to the remedy of revision, and the Revisional Court also confirmed the conviction, which was upset by the High Court of Meghalaya vide its judgment and

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 27/07/2026 at 15:34:14

¶15

order dated 18^th July, 2025, upon the consent given by the complainant that the prosecution was initiated under a misunderstanding.

¶16

In the interregnum, on 22^nd March, 2024, the respondent proceeded departmentally and awarded the punishment of dismissal.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that post his acquittal, by the Apex Court, he has moved a representation seeking reinstatement/reconsideration of the decision qua the dismissal.

¶18

In response to the Court’s query, learned counsel for the respondent states that within six weeks, the representation of the petitioner shall be decided, having regard to the claim put forth in the present petition, and the decision shall be accordingly communicated.

¶19

We accept this statement and dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to communicate the decision so taken within a period of six weeks.

¶20

If adverse to the interest of the petitioner, it shall be open for the petitioner to question the same in accordance with law.

¶21

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶22

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶23

JULY 23, 2026 /pr/st

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 27/07/2026 at 15:34:14

Virender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Padmavathi College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Shahid Baig Vs the Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

N.C. Nayyar Vs M/S. Greaves Cotton Ltd.

Kishan Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S Voltas Limited Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs DDA & Anr.

Jyoti Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms Sarita Singh and Ors. Vs the Comissioner MCD and Ors.

M/S Amritsar Skyline Builders Vs Mr Pradeep Dass & Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Khoraniya Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ex Lac Vivek Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dheerendra Pratap Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vinay Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Capt Rajender Kapoor Vs Union of India and Ors.