Sunny Khurana vs State(Nct Of Delhi) And Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010529732026
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026, CRL.M.A. 34511/2026
+
SUNNY KHURANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Adv.
versus
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
along with Mohd. Naved and Mr.
Mayank Chaudhary, Advs.
SI Prashant, PS H.N. Din.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [corresponding to Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)], the petitioner seeks quashing
of FIR No.0181/2026 dated 03.09.2026, registered at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin,
South East District, New Delhi, under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and all proceedings emanating
therefrom.
2. The factual conspectus is that the FIR was registered on the complaint
of the respondent no.2. She states that she came to know the petitioner at a
gym in January, 2026. They gradually became friends, and thereby starting
communicating with one another using various social media platforms.
3. The FIR narrates how the acquaintance between the
complainant/respondent no.2 and the petitioner progressed. The said FIR
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30

makes a specific allegation of forcible sexual intercourse, alleged to have
been committed in a hotel room under the threat of a knife. The relevant
portions of the same are reproduced hereunder:


Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were in a
consensual relationship, as is evident from the chats/messages between the
petitioner and the respondent no.2. He further submits that the petitioner was
assaulted by respondent no.2’s husband and that, despite the petitioner’s
attempt to register the FIR against respondent no.2’s husband, no such FIR
was registered with regard thereto.
5. It is further submitted that the complainant/respondent no.2 and her
husband have been trying to extort money from the petitioner. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner has already paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the
complainant/respondent no.2 and her husband, and that a further demand of
Rs.10,00,000/- has been raised. The petitioner has, thus, alleged that he has
been falsely implicated in the instant case.
6. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the order dated 08.09.2026
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), South-East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi in Bail Matters No.2686/2026, whereby the
petitioner was granted bail, and in particular upon the observation recorded
therein that the WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and the
complainant/respondent no.2 prima facie show that the petitioner and the
complainant/respondent no.2 were in a consensual relationship.
7. The law governing the exercise of jurisdiction to quash an FIR under
Section 528 BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 CrPC] is well settled.
8. Such jurisdiction is available, inter alia , where the allegations in the
FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with
mala fides .
9. The leading authority on this point is State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal ,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court laid out the categories of
cases in which such power may be exercised. The relevant extracts have been
reproduced hereunder:
(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.
“102. …
xxx xxx xxx
(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.

”
10. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to reproduce the following
observations ( qua the powers of the High Court to quash FIR) of the Supreme
Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21, as relied
upon by Bhajan Lal (supra):
“Cases may also arise where the allegations in the first information
report or the complaint , even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged;
in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises
; it is a
matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information
report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. …”

11. Considering the above dicta , this Court, at this stage, must not embark

upon appreciation of evidence. Rather, it is incumbent on this Court to
consider if the allegations stated in the FIR prima facie satisfy the elements of
the offences invoked therein. This Court cannot undertake an extensive
exercise to weigh the defence against the allegations or decide which version
of the factual account is true.
12. Tested on this standard, no case for quashing is made out in the present
case. As noticed, the FIR makes a specific and detailed allegation of rape,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30

which, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the offence punishable
under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) BNS.
13. It is pertinent to note that the case made out by the complainant does
not conceal any prior acquaintance. The FIR itself narrates the friendship
from January, 2026 and as to how the association between the respondent
no.2 and the petitioner progressed over a period of time. The circumstance
that the parties were previously acquainted, or that they exchanged intimate
messages, as has been pressed upon by the petitioner, does not by itself
establish consent to the sexual act alleged. Reference in this regard may be
made to this Court’s observations in Akshay Aditya v. State of NCT & Anr. ,
BAIL APPLN. 3355/2026, pronounced on 30.10.2026:
“47. The consensual nature of the relationship, even if accepted,
does not by itself answer the specific allegation of force on the
identified dates, made in the FIR and reiterated in the statement of
the complainant under Section 183 BNSS. In this regard, it must be
emphasised that consent to a relationship is not tantamount to
consent to each act within it.
A reference can be made to
Explanation 2 to Section 63 of the BNS, which defines consent in the
following terms:
‘Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the
woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to participate in the
specific sexual act: Provided that a woman who does not physically
resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that
fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.’”
(emphasis supplied)

14. To accept the petitioner’s case at this stage, the Court would have to
conduct a mini-trial, weighing his version and documents against the
allegations in the FIR to determine consent. The same would be beyond the
province of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528
BNSS.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30

15. With regard to the ground of a malicious FIR, even taking the
petitioner’s argument at its highest, it rests entirely on an examination of the
chats/messages exchanged and his own version of a consensual relationship.
However, the authenticity of these chats is itself disputed. Additionally, the
petitioner’s allegations of assault against respondent no. 2’s husband is also
disputed and requires verification/investigation. Cumulatively, these are
disputed questions of fact that must be established at trial.
16. The Supreme Court in Pardeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, has laid down the following
guidelines in the context of a malicious/ mala fide FIR:
“ 20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of
a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is
sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e.,
the materials is of sterling
and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would
rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the
factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,
the material is
such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has
not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such, that
it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
trial would result in an
abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of
justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal – proceedings , in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing
justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would
otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30

arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not
conclude in the conviction of the accused. ”
(emphasis supplied)

17. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid guidelines, the present case does
not qualify for quashing. It cannot be said that the petitioner has been able to
make out any irrefutable case; there are several aspects which necessarily
have to be tested during trial.
18. Considering the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present
petition.
19. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The pending application also
stands disposed of.
20. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all pleas
including those based on the chats, the alleged assault, the alleged demand for
money etc. before the learned trial Court which shall duly consider the same
in accordance with law.
21. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.


SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ cl/sd/vk





Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 8231/2026 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
13:09:30