$~90 * IN THEHIGHCOURTOF DELHIATNEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5069/2026 M/S KHILARI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Avani Bansal, Ms. Parika Singh, Mr. Abhinav Garg, Ms. Manaswew, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State withMr Krishan Kumar Inspector PS ACB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. The petitioner videthe instant petition, seeks quashing of the FIR No.10/2024 dated 11.05.2024 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi under Sections 7A/9/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) read with Sections 409, 418, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner herein is a company engaged in infrastructure projects and a constituent member of the Ayyappa–Khilari Joint Venture, which participated in certain Delhi Jal Board Sewage Treatment Plant tenders. The FIR in question was registered 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 25/07/2026 at 11:35:56 on a complaint dated 10.05.2024 made by the Directorate of Vigilance alleging irregularities in the tendering process relating to the augmentation and upgradation and award of four Sewage Treatment Plant projects undertaken by the Delhi Jal Board, involving contracts worth approximately ₹2,000 crores. The allegations include the tailoring of eligibility conditions, introduction of IFAS-based technology specifications, enhancement of project estimates, grant of technical relaxations, and alleged favouring of certain Joint Venture entities, including the Ayyappa–Khilari Joint Venture. The petitioner is alleged to have bribed a public servant through a commercial organisation and to be involved in offences relating to criminal misconduct by a public servant, criminal breach of trust by a public servant or by a banker, merchant or agent, cheating with the knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to a person whose interest the offender is bound to protect, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, and criminal conspiracy. 3. Ms Avani Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that despite the lapse of nearly two years since the registration of the FIR, no meaningful progress has been made in the investigation. She contends that no material has surfaced thus far indicating the involvement or complicity of the petitioner. She further submits that, notwithstanding the absence of any incriminating material, the petitioner continues to suffer serious prejudice and is being deprived of various business opportunities on account of the pendency of the FIR. It is also submitted that the role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged transactions is limited in nature. 4. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision passed by this Court in the case of M/s PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of 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 25/07/2026 at 11:35:56 NCT of Delhi &Anr.1 and other connected matters with specific reliance on paragraph no.124 thereof, which is reads as under:- “124. As has already been discussed above, even if all the averments made in the FIR are admitted, no offence under Sections 420/406 IPC is made out. From the response of ED also, it is evident that they are trying to claim that the offence under Section 120B IPC, is still made out. However, on what basis the criminal conspiracy is being alleged is not explained, except that Prabir Purkayastha and Jason Pfetcher, had entered into an agreement.” 5. The Court, however, finds that the scam in question requires investigation qua various aspects of the matter. The FIR may not necessarily contain pointed allegations against each accused.Unless the alleged scam is thoroughly investigated, the complicity of the petitioner cannot be fully ruled out. It remains undisputed that the petitioner was the successful bidder of 4 contracts. 6. At this stage, it would also be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Chhattisgarh &Anr. v. Aman Kumar Singh & Ors.,2 wherein the Court, while dealing with a challenge to an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, observed as under: 74. “Having regard to what we have observed above in paragraph 49 (supra) and to maintain probity in the system of governance as well as to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to ‘corruption’ cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act offence. Majorly, the proper course for the high courts to follow, in cases under the P.C. Act, would be to permit the investigation to be taken to its logical conclusion and leave the aggrieved party to pursue the remedy made available by law at an appropriate stage. If at all interference in any case is considered 1W.P.(CRL) 1130/2021; dated 29.05.2026 2(2023) 6 SCC 559 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 25/07/2026 at 11:35:56 necessary, the same should rest on the very special features of the case”. [Emphasis Supplied] 7. Be that as it may, at the present stage, and in the absence of a completed investigation, the involvement of the petitioner cannot be conclusively ruled out. The allegations forming the subject matter of the FIR require a thorough investigation, and this Court is not persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interdict the investigative process at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR in question. However, the Investigating Agency is directed to expedite the investigation and proceed in accordance with law 8. With the aforesaid, the instant petition stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRAKUMARKAURAV, J JULY 22, 2026 Nc 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 25/07/2026 at 11:35:56