$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5287/2026 SHESHNATH CHAUDHARY AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with Ms. Kalpana Jha, Adv. with SI Arti. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 28.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS') seeking quashing of FIR No.150/2026 dated 24.05.2026 registered at Police Station Naraina for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS') and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are occupants of different floors of property bearing No. CB-290, Naraina Ring Road, New Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties in relation to construction activities at the property, use of common areas and other issues concerning the premises. Prior to the registration of the impugned FIR, petitioner no.1 submitted complaints dated 28.04.2025 and 24.05.2026 before the police authorities alleging obstruction in construction work, criminal intimidation, threats and 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 30/07/2026 at 14:38:37 interference by respondent no.2 and her family members. Petitioner no.2 also submitted a complaint dated 02.08.2025 alleging wrongful confinement, physical assault, criminal intimidation and harassment. 4. On 11.05.2025, an indemnity bond and an undertaking were executed between the parties in respect of certain disputes concerning the property. Thereafter, on 23.05.2026, an altercation allegedly took place at the property. CCTV cameras were installed at the premises. 5. Thereafter, the present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of respondent no.2. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and the petitioners joined the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation, Sections 74 and 79 of the BNS were also added. Aggrieved by the registration of the impugned FIR and the continuation of the investigation thereunder, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are involved in bitter litigation regarding the property and have a longstanding dispute. He submits that despite the earlier complaints filed by the petitioners, the police authorities did not conduct a fair and impartial investigation and, instead, registered the present FIR against the petitioners. He further submits that all the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the present case clearly shows that the petitioners are nowhere involved in the offences alleged and that it was respondent no.2 and her family members who criminally intimidated and obstructed the petitioners and created nuisance. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the record shows that there are longstanding disputes 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 30/07/2026 at 14:38:37 between the parties with respect to the property in question and complaints have been lodged by both sides against each other. The allegations made in the impugned FIR and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners disclose disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. 9. The contention of the petitioners that the material collected during investigation establishes that they were not involved in the alleged offences and that respondent no.2 and her family members were, in fact, the aggressors would require appreciation of the material collected during investigation. The rival versions of the parties, the circumstances in which the alleged incident took place and the role attributed to the respective parties are matters which cannot be conclusively determined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial or undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence to determine which of the two versions is correct. The defence of the petitioners and the material relied upon by them can be considered at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. 12. It is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 28, 2026/b/Av 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 30/07/2026 at 14:38:37