Sunita vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


Reserved on: August 03, 2026
% Pronounced on: August 31, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010089862026
+ CRL.M.C. 1858/2026
SUNITA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raja Choudhary and Ms.
Anushika Mishra, Advocates
Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocates
with Insp. R. Srinivasan, Vigilance
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
2
No.08/2025 dated 10.06.2025 registered at Police Station Vigilance, Delhi
3
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with
4
Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua her.
2. Succinctly put , the brother of the complainant lodged a case at PS
Govind Puri against the complainant and his family members. When the
complainant, along with his family members, went to meet the

1
Hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”
2
Hereinafter referred to as “PS”
3
Hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”
4
Hereinafter referred to as “BNS”
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 1 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

5
Investigating Officer ASI Sushil Sharma , at PS Govind Puri on
07.06.2025, he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for
removing the names of his minor daughters. Upon the complainant
expressing his inability to pay the said amount, he reduced the demand to
Rs.10,000/-.
3. Thereafter, as per instructions of co-accused ASI Sushil Sharma, the
complainant handed over a sum of Rs.5,000/- of the total demanded
amount to the petitioner herein, who was running a tea stall near the gate of
PS Govind Puri.
4. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint at PS Vigilance
against the co-accused ASI Sushil Sharma, after which a trap was laid.
5. During the trap proceedings, the complainant handed over the tainted
currency notes to the petitioner at her tea stall, who then entered the PS and
handed over the said currency notes to co-accused ASI. Thereafter, the
raiding team in presence of panch witnesses recovered the same currency
notes from the possession of the co-accused ASI.
6. Based on these facts, the present FIR was registered against the co-
accused ASI and the petitioner herein.
7. The petitioner herein seeks quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua her.
8. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner does not fall within the definition of a ‘ public servant ’ under the
PC Act, and that she is a divorcee operating a small tea stall outside PS

5
Hereinafter referred to as “co-accused ASI”
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 2 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

Govind Puri and has no connection with the police department nor has any
authority to influence the outcome of any criminal case.
9. Drawing attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that the alleged demand of illegal
gratification originated exclusively from the co-accused ASI, and that there
is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had either initiated and/ or
participated in the demand for illegal gratification. As such, since demand
of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for establishing an offence under
Section 7 of the PC Act qua the petitioner, the whole prosecution case
against her cannot sustain. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition
No.204/2024 entitled “ Mr. Murali Krishna R. v. State of Karnataka ”.
10. Learned counsel then submitted that since the case of the prosecution
rests upon the trap proceedings which led to recovery of Rs.5,000/- from
the co-accused ASI, which was handed over by the petitioner, which, at
best, indicates passive physical act which by itself does not constitute an
offence inasmuch as the petitioner was lacking the requisite mens rea since
she had no prior knowledge that the money handed over by the
complainant constitutes illegal gratification.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the essential ingredients of
criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the BNS are not made out
against the petitioner as there is no material to suggest any prior agreement
between the petitioner and the co-accused ASI.
12. Per contra , learned APP submitted that the material collected during
investigation establishes that the petitioner was actively involved in the
alleged offence. The petitioner was working as a conduit on behalf of the
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 3 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

co-accused ASI in a pre-planned manner. The learned APP also handed
over the Status Report, which is taken on record.
13. Learned APP further submitted that the CDR analysis also shows
that the petitioner was telephonically in touch with the co-accused ASI four
times on 07.06.2025 i.e. when the complainant first gave Rs.5,000/-, and
three times on the date of trap i.e. 10.06.2025. The learned APP further
submitted that the CCTV footage, audio recording and the statement of the
complainant recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS also corroborate the
case of the prosecution.
14. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP, as also gone through the materials on record.
15. Quashing an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary and discretionary
remedy, to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection only
whence the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence against the accused. While doing so, this Court is not to
conduct a mini-trial by sifting through the evidence, assessing probabilities,
and/ or weighing the credibility of witnesses, as these are all matters of
trial. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
6
Lal delineated the categories wherein quashing of FIR can be sought 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

6
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 4 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

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.
(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
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 5 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

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.”

16. Regarding essential ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act being
absent qua the petitioner, it cannot be ignored that the present FIR is also
registered under Section 61(2) of the BNS alleging criminal conspiracy.
Thus, the allegations therein against the petitioner, have to be considered in
their entirety.
17. Regarding the petitioner being privy to the whole act, the present
FIR reads as under:-
ASI
“ … …मुझे सुशील ने कहा कक रिश्वत की िकम थाने के गेट से

ननकलकि दाई तिफ एक चाय वाली औित ने चाय की िेहेडी लगा िखी
5000/-
है उसको पैसे दे दो। उस समय मेरे पास रुपये जेब में थे सो मैंने
5000/-
रेहेड़ी पर जाकर उस चाय वाली औरत को रुपये नकद ददये। उन

पैसों को गिनकर उस औरत ने कहा की यह तो दस हजार नहीं हैं पाँच
5000 5000/-
हजार है। फिर मैंने कहा फक अभ़ी हम रुपए दे रहें हैं बाद
ASI
में दे देंिे। इस बात पर उस औरत ने अपने मोबाइल िोन से
5000/-
को िोन ममलाया और कहा फक रुपए आ िए
सुश़ील हैं।

XXX XXX XXX

Gurdeep Singh
जो मशकायतकता थाने के बाहर चाय फक ठेली पर
Sunita Sunita
जहाँ पर चायवाली लडकी से बात करी और जो
पहुींचा
ASI Sushil
ने अपने मोबाइल फोन से से बात करके मशकायतकता
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 6 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

ASI Sushil
िुरदीप मसींह से फक बात करवाई जो बात करने के बाद
ASI Sushil
ने कहा फक मैं चाय वाली ठेली के पास ही आ रहा इसके
ह ाँ
ASI Sushil
बाद थाने के बाहर आया और मशकायतकता िुरदीप मसींह

से बातच़ीत करने लिा और ररश्वत के पैसे चाय वाली लडकी सुऩीता को
Women Help
देने के मलए कहा और वापपस थाने आकर
में
Desk/Public Facilitation Room |
में आकर बैठ िया जो
ASI Sushil
मशकायतकता ने के माींिने पर और उसके कहने पर
Rs. 5000/- (500-500 Rs. 10 )
ररश्वत फक रकम के के नोट जजनकी
details , |
रेड ररपोटा में दजा है चाय वाली लडकी को दे ददए जो
सुऩीता
5000 lower
ने ररश्वत फक रकम के रूपए पहऩी पैंट फक
सुऩीता हुई

बाय़ीं जेब में रख मलए और चाय देने के बहाने थाने के अन्दर जाकर
ASI Sushil
मींददर के साथ ही बने कमरे में को दे ददए
XXX XXX XXX
Insp.
जिस पि मन मय िेड िंग पाटी ने थाना के बाहि चाय
गोववन्दपुिी
D/o
कक ठेली पि लडकी जिसका नाम पता बाद
मौिूद पूछताछ सुनीता
R/o Om Enclave , Gali No 5, Badarpur, new
िाम िी गगिी
Delhi .At this time, it is lodged that a
को ककया
मालूम हुआ काबू
Tehrir prepared by Inspr. kusum Dangi No. D-I/287 (PIS No.
16990003) has been received to SI/DO PS/Vigilance
through HC Ramesh No.147/VIG for registration of FIR.
From the contents of Tehrir a case u/s 7 Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in the year of 2018) and u/s
61(2) BNS 2023, is made out against ASI Sushil Sharma
and of PS Govind puri ,South East, District- South East,
Delhi. Accordingly, a case FIR no. 08/2025 is registered, u/s
7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in the year
of 2018) and u/s 61(2) BNS 2023 and further investigation
of the case is handed over to Inspr. R.Srinivasan No D1/105
(PIS No. 16960230) by the order of senior officers. Copy of
FIR is being sent to Spl. Judge POC, Act and senior
Officers through special messanger. SI/DO
जजसने पर
प छताछ
ASI Sushil
बतलाया फक उसने के कहने पर मशकायतकता
िुरदीप
5000/- | 3
मसींह से ररश्वत़ी रकम के रूपये प्राप्त फकये थे जो उसने ददन
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 7 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

ASI Sushil
पहले भ़ी िुरदीप मसींह से के कहने पर ररश्वत़ी रकम के
5000/- ASI Sushil |
रूपये लेकर को ददए थे जो आज मशकायतकता
ASI Sushil
से रूपये लेकर उसने थाने के अन्दर जाकर पैसे को मींददर
ASI Sushil
के पास वाले कमरे में दे ददए है और फक तुरींत तलाश़ी लेने

पर ररश्वत़ी रकम बरामद फक जा सकत़ी है”
[Emphasis supplied]

18. The above reflects that the FIR specifically records that on
07.06.2025 when the complainant first gave Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner,
she immediately after counting remarked that “… … यह तो दस हजार नह ीं हैं ,
पाँच हजार है … …” and thereafter contacted co-accused ASI to inform him
that Rs.5,000/- had been received.
19. Further, on the date of the trap also, the petitioner herself contacted
the co-accused ASI, when the complainant reached her tea stall, whereafter
the said ASI came to the tea stall and instructed the complainant to hand
over the money to her. After receiving the money, the petitioner went
inside the Police Station and handed it over to ASI, from whose possession
the amount was ultimately recovered.
20. The aforesaid chain of events when considered cumulatively reveals
that the petitioner was not a fly by night innocent operator, and she was
privy to everything and she received the money on behalf of the co-accused
ASI as his intermediary/ conduit. This, prima facie , indicates that the
petitioner was aware of everything.
21. Consequently, under such circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that
the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy along with co-accused ASI.
22. In any event, it is well-settled that a criminal conspiracy, by its very
nature, is ordinarily hatched in secrecy and may have to be inferred from
CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 8 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46

the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the persons involved.
The prosecution, in this regard, is not required to demonstrate a direct
evidence, i.e. precise point in time when the alleged agreement or meeting
of minds took place, as the same are matters of trial.
23. Additionally , though the CDR analysis have to be weighed during
trial, however, it shows that the petitioner was in regular touch with the co-
accused ASI around the same time when the complainant came to her.
There is also the statement of the complainant under Section 183 of the
BNSS which speaks for itself.
24. Thus, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner to Mr.
Murali Krishna R. ( supra ) is misplaced, since FIR therein was registered
only under Section 7(a) of the PC Act and the offence of criminal
conspiracy was not involved therein.
25. As such, for the afore-stated reasons and analysis, the petitioner is
not able to make out a case for quashing the present FIR, at this stage.
26. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.



SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/So/GA


CRL.M.C. 1858/2026 Page 9 of 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:45:46