$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010358292026 + CRL.M.C. 5692/2026 NITISH KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. A. Nameda Patil and Mr. Aryan Tyagi, Advocates. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Khushboo, PS Mehrauli. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.08.2026 CRL.M.A. 23780/2026 (exemption) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5692/2026 and CRL.M.A. 23779/2026 1. This petition seeks for the quashment of the FIR No. 281/2026 for offences under Sections 74,75,79,115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (‘BNS’) registered at Mehrauli, Delhi. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant FIR is a cross-FIR and is ex-facie a misuse and abuse of the process of law as an FIR bearing no. 280/2026 was registered against the complainant i.e., respondent no.2, at the instant of the petitioner and his sister. It is submitted that the FIR No. 280/2026 was prior in time against the respondent, and, as a counter-blast the FIR in question has been filed against the petitioner. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:08:10 Therefore, it is contended that the Court may consider quashing the instant FIR. 3. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP, on instructions, submits that the investigation qua the instant dispute has been carried out and the charge- sheet is likely to be filed shortly. He submits that the petitioner and the respondent shall have right to make their submissions at the stage of framing of the charges. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Puneet Beriwala vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.1, has held that contradictory defences of the accused as well as the registration and pendency of cross-FIRs, ordinarily, should not become grounds, in and of themselves, to exercise powers under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’). These aspects are, thus, better left to be dealt with, considered, and weighed by the Investigating Agency as and when the need arises. 6. Bearing in mind the aforesaid enunciation by the Supreme Court, the Court, at this stage, is not inclined to undertake the exercise of scrutinizing the facts and allegations and instead leaves it open to the petitioner to raise all the issues at the stage of framing of the charges. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 6, 2026/aks/Rao 1 2025 INSC 582 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 13/08/2026 at 11:08:10