$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010263222024 + W.P.(CRL) 1454/2024 & CRL.M.A. 14158/2024 HARBANS LAL NAGPAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Mr. Kaushal Mehta and Mr. Mehul Parashar, Advocates, with petitioner in person and wife of the deceased. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Criminal) for the State, with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], seeking quashing of FIR No. 502/2017, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi, dated 26.09.2017, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The FIR in question came to be registered against the petitioners for the offence of abetment of suicide, the same being founded upon a note stated to have been found in a notebook of the deceased. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the offence in 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 12:13:03 question is not made out, inasmuch as the admitted handwriting of the deceased was never obtained, and that it is not discernible on what basis the purported suicide note has been treated as the foundation of the investigation. 4. During the pendency of the present petition, the investigation has culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners, namely, that the admitted handwriting of the deceased was never obtained, and that it is not discernible on what basis the purported note has been treated as the foundation of the investigation, essentially raises a disputed question of fact concerning the authorship and the genuineness of the note. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,1 that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court is not to conduct a mini-trial, nor to enter upon an appreciation of the evidence, or of the genuineness or otherwise of the material collected during the investigation, such matters being within the domain of the trial. Since the charge-sheet has been filed, and cognizance is stated not to have been taken, the petitioners are at liberty to urge all such contentions at the stage of the taking of cognizance, which the concerned Court shall consider, bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 7. Since petitioner no. 1 is stated to be unwell, having recently undergone a spinal surgery and being unable to walk, he is granted liberty to appear through video conferencing, unless his physical appearance is 1 (2021) 19 SCC 401. 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 12:13:03 inevitable. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners shall, however, appear as and when the matter is called out. 9. Petitioner no. 2 shall also appear as and when physical appearance is required. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of. 11. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 P/Adi 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 12:13:03