$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3141/2026 and CRL.M.A. 12737/2026, CRL.M.A. 12738/2026 DEEPTI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh Nainwal, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. SI Satbir Singh, PS Sarita Vihar. SI Vinod Bhati. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 27.07.2026 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of FIR No. 263/2021 registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi, Delhi under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioners’ were granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR by Additional Sessions Judge. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners’, upon examining the CCTV footage, it was observed that petitioner No.1 was not visible in the footage and that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were seen attempting to pacify the situation. 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 01/08/2026 at 10:53:31 3. It is, thus, the case of the petitioners’ that they have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR and that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution itself does not disclose any incriminating role attributable to them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits notwithstanding the aforesaid observations, the investigating agency filed the charge-sheet, whereafter the Trial Court has proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners. 5. It appears that the Trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioners. The said order has not been challenged. So long as the order framing charges remains in force, ordinarily, the prayer seeking quashing of the FIR cannot be entertained. In this connection, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Manjulal Sinha v. State of UP and Ors.,1 in no uncertain terms, Sohoni on the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2 has observed “After charge sheet against the accused has been filed and charge has been framed in the case, the question of quashing FIR on a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC would not arise”. 6. Even otherwise, it is settled law, that though the exercise of inherent powers of the Court under Article 226/227 and Section 528 of the BNSS are not barred, when an alternate and efficacious remedy exists; however, the Court ought to, ordinarily, insist upon the exhaustion of the alternate remedy.3 In the instant case, the order framing charge is susceptible to a revision. There are no compelling circumstances warranting the said procedure to be short-circuited and a walk-in Section 528 petition to be 1 (2007) 12 SCC 503. 2 23rd Ed., 2023, Vol. 5, p. 7254. 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 01/08/2026 at 10:53:31 maintained. 7. Accordingly, in light of the aforenoted, the petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 27, 2026 Aks/Rao 3 Mohit alias Sonu and Anr. v. State of UP and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 814 of 2023, order dt. 01.07.2013. 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 01/08/2026 at 10:53:31