Facts
The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s orders dated 30 January 2026, finding a prima facie case against him, and 7 March 2026, framing charges under Sections 302/34 IPC in connection with the stabbing death of Nitin Bhaskar.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 1–2The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was among those involved in the assault. The petitioner accepted that he was present but maintained that he had tried to help the deceased and de-escalate the situation, relying on a Section 161 CrPC statement that he and another person had taken the deceased to a clinic.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 5–7The State and the deceased’s father opposed the petition, referring to the petitioner’s alleged active role and CCTV footage.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 8–12Witness examination had commenced before the Trial Court.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 17Issues
Whether the Trial Court’s orders finding a prima facie case and framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 302/34 IPC warranted interference.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 1–2; p. 5, paras. 18–22Whether the petitioner’s asserted role in helping the deceased and de-escalating the incident could be considered at the charge stage.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 5–7; p. 5, para. 18Law Applied
The petition invoked Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to challenge the Trial Court’s orders.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The charges arose under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 1–2Where the material on record is sufficient at that stage to support charges, disputed issues and the accused’s defence are matters for trial, rather than grounds for interference at the charge stage.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 18–21Reasoning
The Trial Court had relied on material indicating that the petitioner pointed out the deceased to the principal accused, was present during the stabbing, and caught hold of the deceased while he was being assaulted.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 13–16That material supported the Trial Court’s prima facie assessment and its decision to frame charges.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 19The petitioner’s account that he was assisting the deceased raised matters for trial, particularly since witness examination had begun; the Court declined to resolve those disputed issues at this stage.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 17–18, 21Holding
The Court held that no ground existed to interfere with the Trial Court’s orders and that the petitioner must face trial and raise his defence there.
The petition was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 23–24Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Indian Penal Code, 18602
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
Mukesh@DudiyavsState Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
