$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010380522026 + W.P.(CRL) 2488/2026 ZAKIR HUSSAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Asif Rai, Advs. versus THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC SI Shubham, PS Khajrui Khas, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 25099/2026 (exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(CRL)-2488/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), qua which the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 234/2026, registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, District North East, Delhi, under Sections 110/331(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX 4. Briefly stated, respondent No. 2 runs a shop under the name and style of “JK Tiles” at Tile Market, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. On 20.05.2023, at about 03:20 p.m., when respondent No. 2 reached his shop, a dispute arose with the 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 20/08/2026 at 11:37:57 occupants of an adjoining shop over the parking of scooters. It is alleged that the dispute culminated in an altercation during which respondent No. 2 and his brother were assaulted by several persons. The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of “Janta Tiles”, was also named as one of the persons who had allegedly assaulted respondent No. 2. On the basis of the complaint made by respondent No. 2, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not present at the place of the alleged incident and had been falsely implicated in the FIR. The petitioner claims that, at the relevant time, he was present at Jama Masjid, Chand Bagh, Delhi, having entered the mosque at 03:20:28 p.m. and exited at 03:42:45 p.m. In support thereof, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the CCTV footage of the mosque and its time-log. 6. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforementioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to pre-existing personal animosity. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is omnibus in nature and is contradicted by the contemporaneous electronic material placed on record before this court. 8. It is further submitted that the CCTV footage obtained from Jama Masjid, Chand Bagh, records the petitioner entering the mosque at 03:20:28 p.m. and leaving at 03:42:45 p.m., whereas the incident in question is alleged to have occurred at about 03:20 p.m. Learned counsel submits that the said footage supports the petitioner’s case that he was not present at the place 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 20/08/2026 at 11:37:57 occurrence at the relevant time. 9. It is further submitted that, in the absence of the petitioner from the place of occurrence, no common intention could be attributed to him and, therefore, the invocation of Section 3(5) of the BNS is misconceived. Learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would subject the petitioner to unwarranted harassment and amount to an abuse of the process of law. He, accordingly, prays that the FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed insofar as they pertain to the petitioner. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 11. The principal question that falls for consideration of this court is whether the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed on the basis of the petitioner's plea that the allegation against him is omnibus and that the CCTV footage relied upon by him establishes his absence from the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 12. The scope of the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court illustrated the limited categories in which such power may be exercised. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the initial stage save in exceptional circumstances. In CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399, it was further held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings, is not required to conduct a mini-trial; the enquiry at 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 20/08/2026 at 11:37:57 that stage is confined to whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. 13. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the submission that the allegation against the petitioner is merely omnibus does not merit acceptance at this stage. The FIR specifically alleges that the petitioner, along with the other named persons, kicked and punched respondent No. 2, as a result of which he became unconscious. Thus, a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has been named on account of pre-existing personal animosity and has thereby been falsely implicated is itself a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined without testing the version contained in the FIR against the evidence that may be collected during investigation. 14. The CCTV-based submission is, in substance, a plea of alibi. A plea of alibi is a question of fact and not a question of law. Its acceptance depends upon the proof of the material relied upon and the evidence led in support thereof. Such disputed questions of fact arising in the present case cannot be adjudicated at this stage while exercising jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR. In Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 634, the Supreme Court observed that an alibi is a plea in the nature of a defence, the burden of establishing which rests upon the accused, and that documents, including CCTV footage, which are yet to be formally proved cannot be treated as conclusive at the threshold. 15. In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Supreme Court recognised that the material produced by an accused may be considered at the stage of quashing only where it is sound, reasonable and indubitable, is of sterling and impeccable quality, and is sufficient to rule out the factual assertions contained in the complaint. Applying the said test, acceptance 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 20/08/2026 at 11:37:57 the petitioner's plea would require this Court to determine the authenticity and accuracy of the CCTV footage and its time-stamps, identify the person appearing therein and then return a finding that the footage conclusively rules out the petitioner's presence or participation in the occurrence. The footage has not been tested in evidence and is not an admitted or incontrovertible circumstance. Undertaking such an exercise would amount to appreciation of disputed defence material and the conduct of a mini-trial, which is impermissible at this stage. 16. The further submission regarding the inapplicability of Section 3(5) of the BNS is founded entirely upon the acceptance of the petitioner's plea that he was absent from the place of occurrence. Once the plea of absence cannot be adjudicated at this stage, it would be equally impermissible to return a finding that no common intention could be attributed to the petitioner. 17. In view of the foregoing, no exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the aforesaid FIR. 18. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the disposal of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary action and compliance. 21. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 17, 2026/b/PG 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 20/08/2026 at 11:37:57