$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 189/2026 MOBIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. (through VC) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP SI Anupama Rathi, ASI Vinod, PS Crime Branch CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 9552/2026 2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. 3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 189/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9551/2026 4. The present petition has been filed under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) for seeking setting aside orders on charge dated 22.12.2025 and the order framing charge 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 112/2022 arising out of FIR No. 0175/2018, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 395/458/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘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 27/07/2026 at 15:14:15 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he is a scrap dealer who had allegedly purchased stolen articles. He submits that as mentioned in the chargesheet, the petitioner has been chargesheeted only for the offence punishable under Section 412 of the IPC. He further submits that although the learned Trial Court has observed that the petitioner had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), no such refusal was ever made as the TIP proceedings were in fact, conducted. He further submits that the role attributed to each accused has been specifically mentioned in the chargesheet and, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned only Section 412 of the IPC has been invoked. It is also submitted that even the evidence matrix contained in the chargesheet records that certain stolen articles were recovered at the instance of the petitioner, indicating that his alleged role is confined to receiving stolen property. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has, however, erroneously observed that offences punishable under Sections 395/458/34 of the IPC are also made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned APP for the State submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out and is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. 7. This court has heard both the learned APP and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Trial Court has observed that the accused persons had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. However, a bare perusal of the chargesheet reveals that TIP proceedings were, in fact, conducted and the witnesses were unable to identify the accused 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 27/07/2026 at 15:14:15 persons. 9. Further, the material placed on record indicates that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he was the recipient of the stolen property and that certain articles were recovered at his instance. The particulars of the accused persons in the chargesheet also indicate that insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the offence alleged against him is under Section 412 of the IPC. In these circumstances, the observation of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings is contrary to the record. Likewise, the question as to whether offences punishable under Sections 395/458/34 of the IPC are made out against the present petitioner requires fresh consideration in light of the material contained in the chargesheet. 10. Accordingly, the order on charge dated 22.12.2025 and the order framing charge dated 16.01.2026 are set aside qua the present petitioner only. 11. The learned Trial Court is directed to hear the parties afresh and pass a fresh order on charge, followed by an order on framing of charge, in accordance with law. 12. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date already fixed, i.e., 24.09.2026. 13. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 21, 2026/ys/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 27/07/2026 at 15:14:15