$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010376802026 + CRL.M.C. 5966/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24863/2026 SRISHTI RAI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. D.K Devesh and Mr. Gopal Mishra Advs. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP SI Dhiraj Singh, P.S. Shalimar Bagh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 14.08.2026 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, qua the petitioners, of FIR No.17/2026 at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, District North West, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 308(3), 351(2), 126(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘BNS’) and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. Briefly stated, Petitioner No. 1 is the daughter of co-accused Nirja Roy, who resides at Flat No. BW-55C, Shalimar Bagh, and petitioner No. 2 is her husband. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of Flat No. BW-55D, situated immediately above the said flat. A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the renovation work undertaken by respondent No. 2 and 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 18/08/2026 at 11:25:30 alleged seepage, damage and unauthorised construction resulting therefrom. 4. As per the FIR, respondent No. 2 alleged that Nirja Roy and her son, Utkarsh Roy, obstructed the renovation work and demanded money from him. He further alleged that, on 10.06.2025, a sum of ₹10,00,000/- was demanded from him as compensation in consideration of withdrawal of the complaint made to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MCD’) and that he was given 24 hours to comply with the said demand. 5. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the FIR records that they, along with Nirja Roy and Utkarsh Roy, caused a legal notice dated 13.06.2025 to be issued and called respondent No. 2 to Flat No. BW-55C. According to respondent No. 2, the petitioners were present at the said flat when his mobile phone was allegedly taken and he was threatened to meet the demand, failing which his house would be demolished. 6. The petitioners dispute the aforesaid allegations and state that they reside in Bengaluru and had not participated in the alleged acts. According to them, they have been implicated on account of their relationship with Nirja Roy and as a counterblast to the complaints and proceedings initiated by her concerning the alleged unauthorised construction. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner no. 1 submits that the allegations against the petitioners are confined to their alleged presence at Flat No. BW - 55C and their purported involvement in causing the legal notice dated 13.06.2025 to be issued. No specific demand, threat or overt act has been attributed to either petitioner. Mere presence and relationship with the other accused are insufficient to constitute the alleged offences. 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 18/08/2026 at 11:25:30 8. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and arises from renovation work, seepage and alleged unauthorised construction. The complaints made to the MCD, issuance of the legal notice and institution of the writ petition were lawful remedies pursued by the mother of petitioner No.1. The FIR is alleged to be a counterblast to those proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner no. 1 further submits that the petitioners were married on 07.02.2025 and have since been residing in Bengaluru. That they have been implicated solely because of their relationship with Nirja Roy. It is contended that the allegations are vague and do not disclose the ingredients of Sections 308(3), 351(2), 126(2) or 61 of the BNS. He further submits that the continuation of the proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law within the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 10. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner no. 1 and the learned APP for the state and have also perused the material placed on record. 11. The principal issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the allegations contained in the FIR, when read as a whole and taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners, or whether, continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 12. It is well settled that the power under Section 528 of the BNSS is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly. At the stage of considering quashing of an FIR, the allegations are required to be taken at their face value. The Court cannot test their truthfulness, weigh the defence of the accused or conduct a mini trial. 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 18/08/2026 at 11:25:30 13. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Supreme Court reiterated that investigation into a cognizable offence should not ordinarily be interdicted except in an exceptional case. 14. The contention that the allegations against the petitioners are confined to their mere presence and participation in issuing a legal notice is not borne out from a plain reading of the FIR. The FIR has to be read as a whole and the alleged acts cannot be considered in isolation. 15. The questions whether the petitioners shared the alleged intention and whether they participated in the acts collectively attributed to the accused are matters of evidence. Adjudication of the contention concerned would require this Court to assess the rival versions and undertake an inquiry, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 16. The fact that the dispute originated from renovation work, seepage and alleged unauthorised construction does not, by itself, render the criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The complaints made to the MCD and the issuance of a legal notice may constitute lawful remedies. The FIR, however, is not founded merely upon the exercise of those remedies. It contains the further allegation that a demand for money was sought to be enforced by threats. The existence of a civil dispute does not warrant quashing where the allegations also disclose a cognizable offence. 17. Furthermore, the supreme court recently in C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 50 has reiterated that civil and criminal liability may arise from the same set of facts and that civil proceedings do not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. 18. The plea that the petitioners ordinarily reside in Bengaluru also cannot be accepted as conclusive at this stage. The petition itself states that they were 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 18/08/2026 at 11:25:30 present at Shalimar Bagh for a family dinner on 13.06.2025, which is the date of the incident specifically alleged against them. Whether they were present at the place and time alleged in the FIR and whether they participated in the alleged acts are disputed questions which must be examined during investigation and, if required, at trial. 19. The plea that the FIR is a counterblast raises disputed questions. The FIR records that respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint on 19.06.2025, referred to as “D No. 120A dated 21.06.2025”, whereas the petitioners state that W.P.(C) 16498/2025 was instituted on 17.10.2025. The rukka also refers to DD No. 94A dated 24.10.2025. The effect of these references and the allegation of mala fides require investigation and cannot be determined in the present proceedings. 20. Taking the allegations in the FIR as a whole and without expressing any opinion on their correctness, it cannot be held at this stage that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioners. Also, the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting quashing of the concerned FIR under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) 21. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to quash FIR No. 17/2026 or the proceedings emanating therefrom. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 23. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court, if any, for necessary information and compliance. 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 18/08/2026 at 11:25:30 24. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 14, 2026/prg/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 18/08/2026 at 11:25:30