Full Judgment Text
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 13 February, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 976/2025 & Crl.M.A. 4490-91/2025
AMANDEEP SINGH BATRA
s/o Sh. Varinder Singh Batra
R/o C-119, Greater Kailash I
New Delhi
ANKUSH ANDAND
s/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Anand
st
R/o H.No.13 & 13, 1 Floor, Block-B
Pocket-5, Sector-3, Rohini
Delhi
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Devika Mahan
& Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Advocates for
Petitioner No.1
Mr. J. K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Ms.
Rishika & Mr. Arjun Syal,
Advocates for Petitioner No.2
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
PRATEEK CHAUDHARY
S/O Sh. Swarn Kumar Chaudhary
th
R/o Plot No.19, 11 Floor Avenue, Sundarvan
Church Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi
.....Respondents
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional
Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.1
Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sanjog Singh
Arneja, Mr. Harjas Singh,
Advocates for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present Appeal under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 325/2023, under
Sections 307/34/120B IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act, registered at
Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), New Delhi; Charge Sheet filed
therein and Order dated 28.08.2023 taking cognizance along with
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner has argued the FIR in
question was registered on 03.06.2023, in which Charge-Sheet as well as
Supplementary Charge-Sheet has already been filed. The learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ACMM’) took cognizance on
28.08.2023.
3. The Petitioners are victims of false, fabricated, motivated and
frivolous prosecution lodged on the basis of a Complaint made by
Respondent No.2- Prateek Chaudhary, who was having an affair with
erstwhile wife of Petitioner No.1-Amandeep Singh Batra. Petitioner
No.2-Ankush Anand is a close friend as well as business Associate of
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
Petitioner No.1, who has been roped into this false case in order to harass
Petitioner No.1, as they have known each other for last about 15 years.
4. It is asserted that the FIR has been filed as an arm-twisting tactic to
pressurize Petitioner No.1 to give divorce to his wife and also to use it as
tool to pressurize him throughout the Divorce proceedings. Pertinently,
after registration of the FIR and after filing of the Charge-Sheet,
Petitioner No.1 and his wife have got divorced.
5. The Complainant is asserted to be an extremely influential person,
who runs a number of famous Night Clubs in Delhi. He has close
proximity with high-ranking police officials and celebrities and has been
using his influence to harass the Petitioners. The Complainant has also
deep-rooted connections with gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy
Brar and has also flaunted his close relations with them on social media
to intimidate and threaten the Petitioners’ and their friends. The
Complainant has used these relations to threaten and harass the Petitioner
No.1, who is living under constant fear of his life and liberty.
6. It is further asserted that in the FIR in question, the Complainant
has merely mentioned that he suspects that the unidentified men shot him
at the behest of the Petitioners. It is further asserted that the entire case
against the Petitioners is based on mere disclosure statements of co-
accused persons and 15 seconds phone call between the purported
shooters and Petitioner No.1, the contents of which admittedly could not
be retrieved by the State. There is no whisper of any sentence or word in
the entire Charge-sheet nor are there are any allegations that the Shooter
called Petitioner No.2. Even after detailed investigations, Prosecution has
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
not been able find a single piece of evidence to show how and when and
where the Petitioners have ever met the alleged shooters.
7. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Petitioner No.1 has further
submitted that Petitioner No.1 in an endeavor to reconcile the differences
with his wife took her along with some friends, for a holiday in summer,
2023 he which irked the Complainant and, on their return, he orchestrated
the shooting on himself and falsely implicated the Petitioners in this FIR.
Even though the Complainant has objected to the Anticipatory Bail of the
Petitioner, but he has entered into a settlement with the Shooters and has
not objected to their bail. It is thus; clear that the present FIR is nothing
but a personal vendetta and falsehood in order to frame the Petitioners
against whom his Complaint has been retained, which clearly shows that
the Complaint is a motivated one.
8. This is further evident from the fact that after filing of Anticipatory
Bail by the Petitioners, the Complainant filed a supplementary complaint
dated 17.07.2023 wherein he elaborated the role of the Petitioners.
Furthermore, the Complainant also sought cancellation of the
Anticipatory Bail granted to the Petitioners, but withdrew the same
immediately after filing of the first motion of divorce by Mutual Consent
by Petitioner No.1 and his wife. Such conduct of Complainant clearly
shows the motivated nature of the case against the Petitioners and that the
same is nothing but an attempt to harass them.
9. Learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that certain police
officials have allowed themselves to be used as a vehicle of harassment
which was unleashed on Petitioner No.1 so that Petitioner No.1 succumbs
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
to the demand of divorce as his wife was having an affair with the
Complainant and is now living with him. The Petitioner No.1 had to also
let go custody of his only child aged 06 years in order to save himself
from the police harassment and malicious prosecution.
10. It is also submitted that Petitioner No.1 has also lodged an FIR No.
376/2024, under Section 308(4) of BNS ; however, till date no action has
been taken on his FIR.
11. Petitioner No.1 was forced to file a petition [W.P.(Crl.)
3781/2024] wherein this Court directed the Respondent-State to grant
protection to his liberty and life. He is now under immense threat to
withdraw his Complaint/FIR against the Complainant. On the occasion of
Diwali , Petitioner No.1 had hosted a gathering of business associates and
close family friends and a team of police officers and a large number of
police officials without disclosing the reasons, carried out search
proceedings and one of the police officials asked him to withdraw his FIR
against the Complainant.
12. Even his erstwhile wife in a telephonic call, has asked Petitioner
No.1 that if the Complainant can get himself shot at, he can also
orchestrate an attack on him.
13. Reliance is placed on Apex Court’s decisions in Inder Mohan
Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SC 1; Janta Dal Vs.
H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque , AIR 2005 SC 9.
14. Reliance has also been placed upon Dinesh Dutt Joshi Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 570; State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
(2002) 3 SCC 89 and Vineet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (2017) 13 SCC 369.
15. Also, reliance is placed on State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it is held that where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge, the Court ought not to hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. It is submitted that the Petitioners are only victims of false and
frivolous Complaint and the investigation were completely biased and
therefore, the investigation in this case may be transferred to the Central
Bureau of Investigation or any other Central Agency. Reliance is placed
on Mitihlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 9 SC 795.
17. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner No.2 has also submitted that
FIR is outcome of relationship between the Complainant and his
erstwhile wife, who is living with the Complainant. It has been
vehemently contended that the incident of shoot out by two shooters at
the Complainant was completely orchestrated and stage managed. In fact,
Petitioner No.1 had never spoken to the Shooters, except the alleged one
15 seconds call, contents of which have not been retrieved. Also,
Petitioner No.2, who is a friend of Petitioner No.1, has been falsely roped
in this case though there is no whisper of any evidence against him. It is
also submitted that there is a transcription of conversation between the
Petitioner and his wife, in which she has supported the conspiracy
hatched by the Complainant.
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
18. The quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings is thus, sought on
behalf of the Petitioners.
19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State as well
as learned Senior Counsel for the Complainant has opposed the present
Petition and submitted that the contentions raised by the Petitioner have
no basis as the investigation of the case has already been transferred to
the Crime Branch. After complete investigations, Charge-sheet and
Supplementary charge sheet have been filed and cognizance has been
taken in 2023. This petition is nothing but an endeavour to stall the
process of law.
20. Submissions heard and record perused.
21. The entire facts which have been narrated by the Petitioners reflect
that there may have been a motive which led to the incident of a shootout.
However, the Complaint specifically avers that on 03.06.2023 the
shooters had fired at the Complainant at the behest of the two Petitioners.
It per se discloses a cognizable offence for which an FIR has been
registered and the investigation has been carried out by the Crime
Branch; Charge Sheet filed on which cognizance has been taken by the
Ld. Trial Court. Aside from claiming that the investigation has not been
carried out in a fair manner, it has not been pointed out on which aspect
the investigation is lacking.
22. The Petitioners are claiming that the entire incident is not
supported by any independent evidence as there is nothing to connect the
Petitioners with the two shooters and also that this entire incident has
been faked. The truthfulness and the merit of the contentions raised
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51
herein may be factors to be considered during the trial, but it cannot be
said that at this stage, there is any ground for quashing of the FIR or the
proceedings emanating there-from.
23. The Charge Sheet has already been filed and the case is at the stage
of framing of Charge. All the assertions and contentions raised herein
essentially are to seek discharge for which arguments may be addressed
before the learned Trial Court.
24. With aforesaid observations, the present Petition and pending
Application(s) are accordingly disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 13, 2025
r
CRL.M.C. 976/2025 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:15.02.2025
17:03:51