Amit Goel And Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: February 11, 2026
% Pronounced on: March 10, 2026

+ CRL.M.C. 765/2026, CRL.M.A. 3048/2026

AMIT GOEL & ANR. …Petitioners
Through: Dr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. Rony John and
Ms. Shipra Mishra, Advocates.
Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Bhandari, ASC.

+ CRL.M.C. 767/2026, CRL.M.A. 3052/2026

AMIT GOEL …Petitioner
Through: Dr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. Rony John and
Ms. Shipra Mishra, Advocates.
Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Bhandari, ASC.

+ CRL.M.C. 768/2026, CRL.M.A. 3054/2026

AMIT GOEL & ANR. ..…Petitioners
Through: Dr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. Rony John and
Ms. Shipra Mishra, Advocates.
Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Bhandari, ASC.

CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 1 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the above petitions under Section(s) 528 and 529 of the
1
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners seek setting aside of the orders dated
2
15.11.2025, 26.11.2025, 10.12.2025 and 05.01.2026 passed by the learned
3
ACJM-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC
Nos.10608/2025, 10610/2025 and 10609/2025 respectively.
2. Succinctly put , three separate FIRs, bearing Nos.80111919/2024,
4
80120277/2024 and 80101207/2024 were filed at PS: e-Police Station,
Vasant Kunj, South West on 03.10.2024, 18.10.2024 and 10.09.2024
5
respectively, all under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
After due investigation, Untrace Reports dated 06.11.2024 and 04.11.2024
were filed in the first and third FIRs respectively before the learned ACJM on
15.11.2025 under Section 193 BNSS besides a Cancellation Report dated
29.10.2024 in the second FIR.
3. In the proceedings arising out of all the FIRs, the learned ACJM passed
the first impugned order dated 15.11.2025 as under:-
“It is submitted by complainant that he is satisfied with
the cancellation report filed by the police and the cancellation

1
Hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’
2
Hereinafter ‘ impugned orders ’
3
Hereinafter ‘ ACJM ’
4
Hereinafter ‘ FIRs ’
5
Hereinafter ‘ BNS ’
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 2 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

report may be disposed of as accepted. Affidavit of complainant
has been filed in this regard.

Heard.

In view of submissions of the complainant and material on
record, the present cancellation report is accepted by the court.

At this stage, it is observed that the instant cancellation
report was forwarded by ACP Concerned on 06.11.2024 and has
been filed in Court after a lapse of more than one year.

Today itself, the IO of the instant matter has filed two
more final reports, which was forwarded by ACP concerned
more than one year ago. Copy of this order be sent to DCP
concerned to bring to his notice conduct of the erring official.

DCP Concerned is directed to file reply on or before
NDOH qua action taken, if any, against erring official.

IO is bound down for NDOH.

List the matter for further proceedings on 26.11.2025.”
[ Emphasis Supplied ]

4. As evident therefrom, on one hand the learned ACJM recorded the
satisfaction of the respective complainants with the Untrace/ Cancellation
Reports filed by the Police, after taking their respective Affidavit(s) on
record, and then proceeded to accept the same in view of the relevant
material, however, despite thereto, the learned ACJM proceeded to observe
that though the respective Untrace/ Cancellation Reports were forwarded by
the concerned ACP in October/ November 2024, the same were filed by the
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 3 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

concerned IO after a lapse of more than one year, and sent a copy of the order
to the concerned DCP and sought a reply thereto.
5. On 26.11.2025, the learned ACJM passed the second impugned order
recording that the reply had been filed, and put up the matter for
consideration on 10.12.2025.
6. Then, vide the third impugned order dated 10.12.2025, the learned
ACJM issued notice to the concerned DCP in the following terms:-
“Reply filed by Additional DCP, as per which, an
explanation has been issued to IO on his part.

IO submits that he is yet to reply to the aforementioned
explanation notice and departmental enquiry is still pending.

Issue notice to DCP concerned to apprise the Court qua
the faith of aforementioned proceedings on NDOH.

List the matter for further proceedings on 05.01.2026.

IO is bound down for NDOH.’
[ Emphasis Supplied ]

7. On 05.01.2026, after noting dissatisfaction with the aforesaid reply, the
learned ACJM vide the fourth impugned order sought further reply from the
6
Additional DCP/ petitioner no.2 and directed her appearance, as also issued
notice to the DCP (SW)/ petitioner no.1 and called for a reply in the
following terms:-

6
Hereinafter referred to as “ Addl. DCP ”
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 4 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

“Reply filed by Addl. DCP, as per which, explanation
issued to IO is "being dealt with as per procedure". The said
reply is found to be evasive.

It is observed that repeatedly, in multiple matters, this
Court has warned the Addl. DCP to not file such evasive replies.
Today itself, this is the third such matter, where the said Addl.
DCP has filed such an evasive reply and has not apprised the
Court qua the fate of departmental enquiry.

In such a scenario, this court is constrained to direct the
aforementioned Addl. DCP to file reply qua the aforementioned
aspect and appear on NDOH. Notice be issued to her
accordingly through the office of Worthy Commissioner of
Police. Copy of this order be sent with the notice.

Issue notice to DCP(SW) to file reply under his signatures
apprising the Court qua the fate of aforementioned proceedings
on NDOH.

List the matter for further proceedings on 29.01.2026.”
[ Emphasis Supplied ]


8. The petitioners assail all the aforesaid orders herein, primarily
contending that the learned ACJM, upon acceptance of the Untrace/
Cancellation Reports which was one of the permissible courses under Section
7
193 BNSS as per Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra ,
was functus officio , and as such, did not have the authority to pass the
concerned directions qua the Police authorities in the impugned orders.

7
(2004) 7 SCC 768
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 5 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

9. In view thereof, as per learned counsel for petitioners, the personal
presence of the Addl. DCP, a Government Official, by the learned ACJM is
contrary to Notification No.119/Rules/DHC dated 26.12.2025 pertaining to
‘ Personal appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings Rules,
2025 ’, whereby physical presence of government officials is not to be
directed routinely or merely because the official’s stance in the affidavit
differs from the Court’s view, as also has to follow due procedure such as
recording of reasons, video-conferencing being the first option, etc.
10. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by
8
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State vs. Yogender Singh , involving
directions to higher officials to take action against the erring officials. In
effect, the learned counsel submitted that the learned ACJM overstepped
jurisdiction and ventured into administrative functions solely within the
9
discretion of the Police governed by the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the
10
Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 , as also pre-judged the
conduct of the concerned Police officials.
11. Relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow
11
Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh , learned counsel
submitted qua the independence of departmental/ disciplinary proceedings, as
also the limited scope of judicial review therein. Also, relying upon the dicta
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Assn. of Retd.

8
2015 SCC OnLine Del 14203
9
Hereinafter ‘ DP Act ’
10
Hereinafter ‘ DP Rules ’
11
(2013) 12 SCC 372
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 6 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

12
Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. , learned
counsel submitted that frequent summoning of government officials at the
drop of a hat despite their affidavit(s) being filed in Court is impermissible
and Constitutionally unsound.
12. Learned ASC for the State supported all the aforesaid contentions
made by learned counsel for the petitioners, and submitted that the fate/
result/ outcome of the proceedings against the concerned IO was beyond
jurisdiction of the learned ACJM. Relying upon A.M. Mathur vs. Pramod
13
Kumar Gupta & Ors. and Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. vs. State of Assam
14
& Anr. , passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as also Sanjay Kumar Sain
15 16
vs. State of NCT of Delhi and State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shadab , rendered
by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the learned APP submitted that adverse
remarks passed by a Court against an individual without affording them an
opportunity to be heard is against the principles of natural justice.
13. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners as also the learned APP for the State as well as perusal of the
pleadings on record, the moot issue before this Court is qua the jurisdiction
of the learned ACJM in passing the impugned orders, after accepting the
Untrace/ Cancellation Reports filed by the Police.

12
(2024) 3 SCC 1
13
(1990) 2 SCC 533
14
(1996) 6 SCC 234
15
2023/DHC/1499
16
2023 SCC OnLine Del 8159
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 7 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

14. In the proceedings pending before the learned ACJM qua the three
FIRs, as per Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre (supra) , the learned ACJM had to
exercise one of three possible options being [i] accept the Report(s) filed by
the Police or [ii] reject the Report(s) filed by the Police and take cognizance
or [iii] direct further investigation. As evident from the first impugned order
dated 15.11.2025, the learned ACJM had duly accepted the Untrace/
Cancellation Report(s) filed by the Police under Section 193 BNSS, as per
which no cognizable offence(s) were made out in each of the said
proceedings. More so, in each proceeding ‘ No Objection ’ of the
complainant(s) in person has also been filed, which also was taken due note
of. Thus, since the learned ACJM clearly accepted each of the Untrace/
Cancellation Report(s) filed by the Police therein, the same tantamounted to
passing of a final order in all the proceedings. Resultantly, the proceedings in
each case before the learned ACJM stood ‘ closed ’ for all purposes.
15. In such a scenario, by the first impugned order dated 15.11.2025, it
was not for the learned ACJM to venture into the alleged lapses, if any, by the
Police or anyone in any of the proceedings, much so, whence there was
nothing pending before him. Also, since the learned ACJM was not a fact-
finding authority, he could not have unwound the clock by starting a de-novo
enquiry, as it was beyond his jurisdiction.
16. Similarly, in the wake of the aforesaid findings, subsequently also the
learned ACJM could not have continued to venture into the step(s) taken, if
any, by the Police and/ or (non-)filing of the replies before the departmental
authorities by the IO or calling for any officer’s presence, much less the Addl.
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 8 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49

DCP. In any event, the lapse, if any, was within the sole discretion of the
disciplinary/ departmental authorities of the Police. Reliance is placed upon
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. (supra) , as also upon Rule 13(1)
of the DP Rules.
17. No doubt, the steps initiated by the learned ACJM were for a good
cause/ reason, however, since the manner adopted is not permissible.
18. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the impugned orders
dated 15.11.2025, 26.11.2025, 10.12.2025 and 05.01.2026 insofar as the
directions issued by the learned ACJM to the DCP/ petitioner no.1 and the
Addl. DCP/ petitioner no.2, are set aside.
19. Be that as it may, the Police shall be free to initiate/ continue any
action(s) against the concerned IO as per the DP Act and/ or DP Rules in
accordance with law.
20. The present petitions, along with the pending applications, are
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MARCH 10, 2026
Ab/RS
CRL.M.C. 765/2026; CRL.M.C. 767/2026; CRL.M.C. 768/2026 Page 9 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:10.03.2026
01:56:49