$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010309942021 + W.P.(CRL) 1940/2021, CRL.M.A. 15886/2021 & CRL.M.A. 521/2023 JASJIT SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kaul, (Proxy Counsel) and Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocates. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Ms. Priya Rai, Ms. Shristi Kumar, Mr. Purvit Jain, Ms. Katyayani Dwivedi and Ms. Anushka Mishra, Advs. for State. SI Yogendra Kumar, PS: EOW. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. This matter was called out on 15.07.2026, when, at the request of the petitioner, the hearing was deferred. 2. Today, a further request for adjournment has been sought by the petitioners. 3. The said request is opposed by the respondent. 4. The petition is for the quashment of the FIR No. 685/2016 for the offences under Section 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:13:25 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. The FIR arises out of a property transaction between the complainant and co-accused M/s. Rajasavi Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5. The petitioners, who are husband and wife and senior citizens residing in the United Kingdom, contend that they had no privity of contract or direct dealings with the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had pursued civil proceedings arising out of the same transaction, wherein the petitioners were held not liable to be impleaded, and a decree was passed against the co-accused. The petitioners have also joined the investigation on several occasions and were granted anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, as per the order dated 26.11.2025 of the concerned Court, the petitioners have already filed an application seeking their discharge. The said application is pending for consideration. 7. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the chargesheet has also been filed. 8. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs Pratima Mohanty1, has held as under: “6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or 1 [2021] 9 S.C.R. 335 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:13:25 considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing the mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.” 9. In view of the aforesaid developments, the Court, therefore, disposes of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues before the concerned Court in petitioners’ application seeking discharge. 10. The concerned Court shall appropriately consider the grievances raised by the petitioners and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 11. If the grievances of the petitioners are not addressed, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. 12. With these observations, nothing more is required to be adjudicated. 13. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/P/M This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:13:25