Smt Sarita Malguria Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

Smt Sarita Malguria Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Exemption application (CRL.M.A. 19186/2026) allowed subject to all just exceptions; main petition and pending application CRL.M.A. 19185/2026 disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy if, after filing of the charge sheet, charges are framed against him.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having already been declined quashment of the FIR by order dated 11.12.2025 and granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies, can revive his prayer for quashment of the FIR at the present stage after joining investigation and obtaining anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

In terms of the directions contained in paragraph no.5 of the order dated 11.12.2025, this is not the appropriate stage at which the petitioner can be permitted to seek the same remedy (quashment of the FIR) which was denied by that order.

Ratio / Principle

If after filing of the charge sheet charges are framed against the petitioner, it is at that stage that the petitioner may take appropriate remedy.

Key takeaways

In view of the above position, the instant petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), in CRL.M.C. 4609/2026 filed by Smt Sarita Malguria seeking revival of her/his prayer for quashment of an FIR disclosed under Section 406 IPC, held that in view of the directions already issued in paragraph 5 of the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in CRL.M.C. 8853/2025, the present stage was not appropriate for permitting the petitioner to seek the same remedy which stood denied; liberty having been granted therein to avail appropriate remedy upon adverse action, the petitioner may move for appropriate remedy only if, after filing of the charge sheet, charges are framed. The petition and pending application were accordingly disposed of. A separate exemption application (CRL.M.A. 19186/2026) was allowed subject to all just exceptions. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

$~88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CRL.M.C. 4609/2026 and CRL.M.A. 19185/2026

SMT SARITA MALGURIA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Akshat Vachher and Mr.Kul Anand, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State. Mr. Sudershan Rajan, Mr. Nischay Chaudhary, Mr. Akshansh, Mr. Upmanyu Chikara, Advocates for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

CRL.M.A. 19186/2026 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 4609/2026 and CRL.M.A. 19185/2026

The petitioner earlier approached this Court in CRL M.C.8853/2025 seeking quashment of the FIR. The Court vide order dated 11.12.2025 in paragraph no. 5 of the said decision has issued the following directions:-

“5. Having considered the submissions, the following directions are issued:

(i) The Petitioner shall join the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when duly notified.

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 09/07/2026 at 10:46:00

(ii) The statement of the APP is taken on record. In the event that any adverse action is contemplated against the Petitioner, due notice shall be issued to him, keeping in view that the FIR presently discloses only an offence under Section 406 IPC.

(iii) The Petitioner shall be at liberty to furnish all relevant documents to the Investigating Officer, if so advised.

(iv) The Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in the event the investigation culminates in any action adverse to him. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.”

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner then contends that the petitioner had joined the investigation; and was also enlarged on anticipatory bail and at this stage, he seeks to revive his prayer for quashment of the FIR.

The Court, however, finds that in terms of directions already contained in paragraph no.5 of order dated 11.12.2025, this is not the appropriate stage where the applicant can be permitted to seek the same remedy which was denied vide the said order. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in event the investigation culminates in any action adverse to him. If after filing of the charge sheet, charges are framed against the petitioner, it is at that stage, the petitioner may probably take appropriate remedy.

In view of the said position, the instant petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

JULY 7, 2026 Nc

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 09/07/2026 at 10:46:00