CRL.M.C. 6605/2026 $~112 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010420252026 + CRL.M.C. 6605/2026 RICHA NAYYA ALIAS RUPALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narender Singh, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Mr. Sachin Deshdeep & Mr. Prayash, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. Appearance not given for R-2. R-2 in Person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 275/2026 dated 07.08.2026 registered at Police Station Mandawali Fazal Pur, under Sections 316(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]. 2. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 and is presently at the stage of investigation. As per the allegations in the FIR, a SIM card issued in the name of respondent No. 2 [mobile No. 8766327658] was taken from him by petitioner No. 1 on the pretext that she required the SIM card for some time and would return it thereafter. Since petitioner No. 1 and her husband, petitioner No. 2, were known to respondent No. 2, he handed over the SIM card to her. However, despite repeated requests, the petitioners did not return the SIM card to him. 3. The respondent No. 2 thereafter received information that 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 10/09/2026 at 11:01:44 CRL.M.C. 6605/2026 petitioners were allegedly involved in gambling activities and illegal trade in narcotic substances, and that serious criminal cases had been registered against them. Apprehending that the SIM card issued in his name could be used by the petitioners in connection with criminal activities, thereby exposing him to possible legal proceedings, respondent No. 2 approached the police and lodged the present FIR. 4. Mr. Narender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent No. 2 has subsequently filed a complaint dated 29.08.2026, alleging that the aforesaid FIR was registered after he was coerced by the police authorities and that his signatures had been obtained on certain blank papers. 5. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, submits that both the petitioners are involved in other serious criminal proceedings. In particular, petitioner No. 1 is an accused in FIR No. 69/2026 registered at Police Station Preet Vihar under Sections 22/25/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”]. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2 has himself disclosed, in the affidavit filed in the present proceedings, as many as 15 previous criminal involvements, including cases under the Arms Act, 1959, and the Public Gambling Act of 1867, as well as the aforesaid FIR No. 69/2026 under the NDPS Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, upon instructions from respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, reiterates that the subject FIR was registered after the police authorities coerced respondent No. 2 into signing blank papers. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 10/09/2026 at 11:01:44 CRL.M.C. 6605/2026 I am not persuaded that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the subject FIR at this stage. 8. The FIR is still under investigation, no charge-sheet has been filed, and the stage for recording the testimony of respondent No. 2 has not yet arisen. Although respondent No. 2 stated in the FIR that the subject SIM card was taken by petitioner No. 1, in his subsequent complaint dated 29.08.2026, he attributes the taking of the SIM card to petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that the SIM card had been issued to him sometime in the year 2019-2020 and, that it was taken from him within one or two months thereafter. Significantly, several of the criminal involvements of petitioner No. 2 relate to the period subsequent to the time when the aforesaid SIM card was admittedly being used by the petitioners. The manner of use of the SIM card at the relevant time, and identity of the user(s) is thus of larger significance. 9. Even assuming the subsequent version of respondent No. 2 to be correct, namely, that he had voluntarily handed over the SIM card to the petitioners and that the FIR came to be registered after he was allegedly coerced into signing blank papers, these are matters which require investigation. At this stage, the Court cannot conclusively determine the circumstances in which the SIM card was obtained or used, or the circumstances in which the FIR came to be registered. The fact that respondent No. 2 has subsequently taken a different stand does not, by itself, furnish sufficient ground to terminate the investigation at its inception. 10. More importantly, the allegations in the present case cannot be treated as constituting a purely private dispute between the petitioners 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 10/09/2026 at 11:01:44 CRL.M.C. 6605/2026 respondent No. 2 which can be brought to an end merely on the basis of a compromise. The allegation concerns the taking and subsequent use of a SIM card issued in the name of respondent No. 2, in circumstances where the record discloses that the petitioners have also been involved in other criminal proceedings, including proceedings under the NDPS Act. The possibility that a SIM card registered in the name of one person, may have been used in connection with criminal activities by others, has ramifications beyond a private dispute between the parties and, therefore, involves a larger public interest. Consequently, the subsequent stand respondent No. 2 cannot, at this stage, be made the sole basis for quashing the subject FIR. 11. Needless to say, insofar as the other criminal involvements of the petitioners are concerned, the question as to whether the SIM card in question was used in connection with any such proceedings and, if so, by whom, is a matter to be considered independently in the respective proceedings. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. The petition, alongwith any pending application, is accordingly, dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 “pv”/SD/ 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 10/09/2026 at 11:01:44