Disposed¶11

Xyz v. State of Gnctd

Delhi HC2 Jul 2026W.P.(CRL)/1861/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR copy to informant; refusal by Magisterial Court during investigation-monitoring; Section 173(2) BNSS; corresponding Section 154(2) Cr.P.C.; deserted wife petitioner; monitoring application; charge-sheet imminent (next date 30.07.2026); spare copy furnished in court; petition disposed; Delhi HC W.P.(CRL) 1861/2026; Manoj Jain, J.; 02.07.2026; State of GNCTD.

What did the court decide?

Copy of FIR was provided to the petitioner's counsel during the hearing; petitioner left with no grievance and the petition was disposed of accordingly. ¶11

Xyz Vs State of Gnctd — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02^nd July, 2026

¶4

- W.P.(CRL) 1861/2026 XYZ .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikrant Dabas and Ms. Gunjan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF GNCTD

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma and Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advocates. SI Prajjwal.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶10

The petitioner herein, a deserted wife filed an application before the learned Magisterial Court seeking monitoring of the investigation.

¶11

In her such application, she also very clearly highlighted that till date she had not been provided with copy of FIR.

¶12

Though, her monitoring request was entertained by the learned Trial Court and notice was issued to the concerned I.O. to file latest status update with respect to the ongoing investigation, when the applicant prayed for supply of copy of FIR, such request was declined, while observing that in fact the applicant should have filed the application for monitoring, alongwith copy of FIR.

¶13

As already noticed above, the petitioner had, in no uncertain terms,

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 1861/2026 1

¶16

Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 4.07.2026 12:47:29

¶17

averred in her application that she had not been supplied with copy of FIR and in such a situation, even if it was at the cost of repetition , a copy of FIR should have been made available to the informant.

¶18

This is, even otherwise, a statutory requirement as clearly mandated under Section 173(2) of BNSS (Corresponding Section 154(2) Cr.P.C.)

¶19

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for State appears on advance notice and, in all fairness, has come armed with a spare copy of FIR which has been immediately provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was an unusual situation for him as for having a copy of FIR, he had to knock the doors of Constitutional Court.

¶21

This Court expects that the learned Magisterial Courts, while being mindful of the above statutory provision, do not deny the same, even if it was provided earlier.

¶22

The next date before the learned Magisterial Court is stated to be 30.07.2026. Fact, however, remains that it is informed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the investigation is almost over and charge-sheet is likely to be filed before the abovesaid next date of hearing.

¶23