$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010123322023 + CRL.M.C. 2413/2023 DAULAT RAM GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Pushpa Rana, Adv. Petitioner-in-person versus Y.K.TYAGI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with Mr. Siddharth Shankar Jha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (South- West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate- 01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, came to be dismissed. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against his former wife as well as certain police officials of P.S. Dabri, alleging, inter alia, that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy to falsely implicate him and his family members in a case under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’). 4. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was 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 19/08/2026 at 12:02:20 initially dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition, which came to be allowed, pursuant to which the petitioner was permitted to lead pre-summoning evidence. Upon completion of the pre-summoning evidence and hearing the submissions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned respondent No.1, i.e. the former wife of the petitioner. However, insofar as the allegations against respondent Nos.2 to 10, who are the police officials, are concerned, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the petitioner had failed to place sufficient material on record to establish any common intention or criminal conspiracy between respondent Nos.2 to 10 and respondent No.1 for falsely implicating the petitioner. Accordingly, the complaint qua respondent Nos.2 to 10 was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. After considering the submissions and material on record, the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. The relevant observations contained in paragraphs 13 to 14 of the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 read as under: “13. In case such police officials have been, as alleged, held accountable in the alleged vigilance enquiry, the concerned department shall take appropriate action on administrative side. Fact remains that casual and lackadaisical approach on their part shall not mean that the act had been done with criminal intent. If such hypothesis is accepted then, every careless and negligent person shall be automatically labelled as criminal. Merely because, they, as alleged by revisionist, knew about the fact that the jewellery articles wee in bank locker would 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 19/08/2026 at 12:02:20 not mean that they had entangled the accused and his family members deliberately while working in pursuance to criminal conspiracy. Of course, conspiracy, as is generally said, is hatched in secrecy and there cannot be a specific and tangible material and evidence to infer the same. However, there has to be some additional material to form opinion of existence of any such conspiracy. If I believe the version of the revisionist, at best, the concerned police officials can be said to be touch inconsiderate. That, however, by itself cannot be considered to be an act of conspiracy or working in collusion with complainant of that case. 14. In view of the forgoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and consequently, the criminal revision petition filed by the revisionist stands dismissed.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a layman and, therefore, was unable to place the Vigilance Enquiry Report on record before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the said material would demonstrate the alleged involvement of the police officials in the conspiracy. 7. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the police officials were aware of the fact that the jewellery and other articles were lying in the bank locker of the petitioner’s former wife, and despite such knowledge, proceeded with the registration and investigation of the case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. According to the petitioner, this circumstance, coupled with the material relating to the Vigilance Enquiry, was sufficient to prima facie establish a criminal conspiracy between the police officials and respondent No.1. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the 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 19/08/2026 at 12:02:20 petitioner and perused the material placed on record. The learned Revisional Court has considered the allegation that the police officials had acted in collusion with respondent No.1 and has rightly observed that a casual or negligent approach on the part of a public official, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of criminal intent or conspiracy. 9. The mere fact that the petitioner’s former wife had allegedly kept jewellery and property documents in a bank locker or that the police officials were aware of the same cannot by itself, establish that the police officials had entered into a criminal conspiracy with respondent No.1 to falsely implicate the petitioner and his family members. The allegation of conspiracy has to be supported by some material which, at least prima facie, connects the alleged conspirators with the commission of the offence. Mere suspicion or inference drawn from the subsequent course of events cannot substitute such material. 10. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after permitting the petitioner to lead pre-summoning evidence, had examined the material placed before the Court and had found sufficient ground to proceed against respondent No.1, while finding no sufficient material to summon respondent Nos.2 to 10. The learned Revisional Court has thereafter independently considered the matter and found no illegality or impropriety in the said order. 11. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 17, 2026/b/P 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 19/08/2026 at 12:02:20