Alok Prakash Srivastava vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: August 18, 2026
% Pronounced on: August 31, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010256942026
+ CRL.M.C. 4388/2026, CRL.M.A. 17734/2026
ALOK PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advs.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State
with Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr.
Gourav Singh, Advs.
SI Hemant, HC Pawan Bhat, PS.:
Badarpur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
1
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR
No.585/2025 dated 13.11.2025 registered at P.S. Badarpur, New Delhi
2
under Section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , along with all
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Succinctly put , on 08.11.2025, the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
3
Sub-Division, Badarpur, New Delhi , in exercise of powers under Section
1
Hereinafter referred to as “ BNSS ”
2
Hereinafter referred to as “ BNS ”
3
Hereinafter referred to as “ ACP ”
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
163 of the BNSS read with Notification No.B-11036/1/2010 UTI dated
09.09.2019 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi, passed an Order that no landlord/ owner/ person of any house/
property falling within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Police Stations shall
let/ sublet/ rent out any accommodation to any person unless and until the
particulars of the tenant/ servants were furnished to the Station House
4
Officer of the Police Station concerned.
3. On 13.11.2025, when the police officials from PS Badarpur were
conducting servant verification at Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area,
5
they reached Company No.B-2/3 , where one Ravi Kumar was found
working as a guard. Upon inquiry, he disclosed that he had been working at
the said premises for approximately five years and that he had submitted
his verification documents to the petitioner. However, since his servant
verification had not been conducted, the present FIR under Section 223(a)
of the BNS was registered against the petitioner for contravening the
aforesaid Order dated 08.11.2025 issued by the ACP.
4. Subsequently, upon completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed chargesheet along with written complaint dated 26.11.2025 of
the ACP as prescribed under Section 215 of the BNSS. Cognizance thereon
6
was taken by the learned ACJM (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi
vide order dated 07.01.2026 and summons were issued to the petitioner.
5. Aggrieved by registration of the aforesaid FIR and proceedings
emanating therefrom, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the
present petition.
4
Hereinafter referred to as “ PS ”
5
Hereinafter referred to as “ premises ”
6
Hereinafter referred to as “ Trial Court ”
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
6. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner praying for
quashing of the present FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom
submitted that the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner
based on wrong assumption that he was/ is the owner of the premises and
employer of the guard, whereas there is no material on record to establish
either of these facts.
7. Learned senior counsel further submitted that, in any event, as
apparent from the present FIR dated 13.11.2025 and charge sheet dated
24.11.2025, it is the case of the prosecution that the said guard had been
working at the premises for approximately five years. Thus, the
engagement of the security guard admittedly pre-dates the order dated
08.11.2025, which came into force only on 09.11.2025. Therefore, the
alleged omission on the part of petitioner, if any, cannot constitute any
disobedience. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Chander Bhushan v. State of NCT of
7
Delhi .
8. Learned senior counsel then submitted that since there is nothing
reflecting the communication of the Order dated 08.11.2025 issued by the
ACP to the petitioner, there was no deliberate disobedience thereof by the
petitioner.
9. Lastly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
reliance upon the written complaint dated 26.11.2025 allegedly under
Section 215 of the BNSS by the prosecution is misplaced as it was never
7
2022 SCC OnLine Del 4879
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
addressed to the learned Trial Court, and further since the same was not
considered by the learned Trial Court, while taking cognizance.
10. Per contra , learned APP submitted that it was revealed only during
inquiry of servant verification that the petitioner had employed the said
guard without his verification. This, according to learned APP was in
violation of the Order dated 08.11.2025 issued by the ACP.
11. This Court has heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as also
learned APP and perused the materials on record along with the case laws
cited.
12. It is trite that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
CrPC/ Section 528 of the BNSS to quash an FIR/ criminal proceedings is
limited and its inherent/ extraordinary power are to be exercised sparingly
in rarest of the rare cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of
8
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal has delineated the categories wherein such power
may be exercised, as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we have given the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
8
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) 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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
13. In the case at hand, the case of the prosecution wholly rests upon the
Order dated 08.11.2025 issued by the ACP, which reads as under:-
“Whereas, reports have been received that due to the
situation prevailing in the areas of Police Stations of Sub
Division Badarpur, South East District, Delhi, it is
apprehended that terrorist/ anti-social elements may seek
hideouts in the residential areas of the said Police Stations
and there is every likelihood of breach of peace and
disturbance of public tranquility and also there is grave
danger to human life and safety and injury to public
property on that account.
And where as it is necessary that some checks should be put
on landlords/ tenants/ Servants so that terrorists/ anti-social
elements in the guise of tenants may not cause explosions
riots, shoot outs, affray etc and that immediate action is
necessary for the prevention of the same.
Now, therefore I, HARISH CHANDER, Asstt. Commissioner
of Police, Sub. Division Badarpur, New Delhi, in exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-section (I) of the
Section 70 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (34 of 1978) upon
me under Section 163 BNSS, 1973, read with Govt, of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi's Notification No. B-
11036/1/2010-UTI, dated 09.09.2010 do hereby order that
no landlords/ owner/ person of any house/property which
falls under the jurisdiction of Police Stations specified
above, shall let/ sublet/ rent out any accommodation to any
person unless and until he has furnished the particulars of
the said tenant/ servant(s) to the Station House officer of the
Police Stations/ concerned. All persons who intend to take
accommodation on rent shall inform in writing in this
regard to the Station House Officer concerned in whose
Jurisdiction the premises fall. The persons dealing in
property business shall also inform in writing to the Station
House Officer concerned in. whose jurisdiction the premises
fall about the particulars of the said tenants/servants.
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
This order shall come into force with effect from
09.11.2025 and remain in force for a period of 60 days i.e.
up to 07.01.2026 (both days inclusive) unless withdrawn
earlier.
Any person contravening this order shall be punishable
under Section 223 of the BNS… …”
[Emphasis supplied]
14. As apparent therefrom, the said Order was only operative for a
limited period of 60 days from the date of its issuance, i.e. 09.11.2025 until
07.01.2026, and thus was prospective in nature, not retrospective. As such,
it was applicable only during the period in which the said Order remained
in force. The said Order, therefore, cannot be given an expansive meaning
to include/ govern tenancies or engagements of servants which were
already in existence prior to the date of commencement of the said Order.
15. In these circumstances, it is significant to note the contents of the
present FIR, which are reproduced as under :-
“… … श्रीमान Duty Officer साहब थाना बदरपुर नई ददल्ली सरकारी
कार्य के दिए दनवेदन है दक मन HC मर् Ct Kumarpal, No 3446/SE
DD NO 114 A DT. 13/11/25 से इिाका गस्त मे मौजूद थे। जो समर्
करीब 06:05 PM पर जब मन HC मर् हमराही Ct Kumarpal, No
3446/SE के साथ Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Area पहुंचे तो
Servant Verification करते हए Company No. B-2/3 पहुंचे तो पता
उपरोक्त पर एक आदमी Guard दमिा दजसने अपना नाम व पता
Ravi Kumar S/o Shiv Charan R/o B-2/3, Mohan Co-
Operative Area, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 Age 43 Yrs.
Mobile No 7217778199 बतिार्ा। जिसने पूछताछ पर बतलाया
जि वह पता उपरोक्त पर लगभग जपछले 5 साल से नौिरी िरता
है। दजसने Servant Verification के बारे में पूछताछ करने पर
बतिार्ा दक उसने Verification से सम्बन्धित Document Company
के मादिक Alok Prakash Shrivastav S/o K. P. Shrivastav R/O
H.No. Flat No.502, Captown Supertack, Sector-74, Noida,
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
UP Age 57 Yrs, Mobile No 8377039502 को दे रखी है। दजन्होने
अब तक Servant Verification नहीुं करार्ी है। जो ददल्ली में Servant
की Verification के बारे में समाचार पत्र व टेिीदवजन व Beat Staff
समर् -2 पर बतिाता रहता है। दिर भी Company के मादिक Alok
Prakash Shrivastav S/o K. P. Shrivastav पता उपरोक्त ने अपने
उपरोक्त
Servant Verification Ravi Kumar S/o Shiv Charan
पता उपरोक्त की Servant Verification नही कराकर Notification
No 1620/ACP/Badarpur Dated 08/11/25 की अवेहिना करके
अपराध U/S-223 (a) BNS का दकर्ा है। दिहाजा एक िेख तैर्ार
करके Ct Kumarpal, No 3446/SE के द्वारा मुकदमा दजय करवाने
हेतु थाना दभजवार्ा जा रहा है। मुकदमा दजय करके मुकदमा सुंख्या से
अवगत करार्ा जावे। …”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. The aforesaid leaves no doubt that even on 13.11.2025, when the
Police inspected the premises, the guard had, admittedly , been working
there for the last approximately five years . Not only that, this Court also
finds that even in the chargesheet filed before the concerned Magistrate and
the Status Report filed before this Court, the whole case of the prosecution
is based on the said Order dated 08.11.2025 as it is the sole basis of the
alleged offence under Section 223(a) of the BNS. There is nothing else
anywhere.
17. In such a scenario, an alleged omission on the part of petitioner, if
any, when the inspection was conducted at the premises on 13.11.2025
cannot be constituted an act of disobedience of the Order dated 08.11.2025
issued by the ACP. Thus, the whole essence of the present FIR is based on
something which cannot withstand trial.
18. The present proceedings are also not falling in any of the categories
delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana (supra) .
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46
19. Ergo , in the considered opinion of this Court, since no offence under
Section 223(a) of the BNS is made out, the present FIR No.585/2025 dated
13.11.2025 registered at P.S. Badarpur, New Delhi, along with all
proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.
20. As such, the present petition along with the pending application is
allowed and disposed of.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/ bh/GA
CRL.M.C. 4388/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46