CRL.M.C. 6857/2026 $~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010439172026 + CRL.M.C. 6857/2026 & CRL.M.A. 28695-96/2026 PROMILA GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Gandhi, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Dushyant Nayak, Ms. Priyanka Khandelwal, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Ms. Aastha Soni, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Surender Singh. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 369/2022, dated 29.11.2022, registered at Police Station Timarpur, Delhi, under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevent of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 [“the Act”]. 2. The principal ground urged by Mr. Manish Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the FIR was registered on the complaint of SI Surender Singh, who is himself investigating the offence as 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:03 CRL.M.C. 6857/2026 Investigating Officer [“IO”]. 3. Mr. Gandhi submits that, in several judgments of this Court, FIRs have been quashed on the ground that the complainant is also the IO, as this inhibits the independence of the IO. He draws my attention to the orders of this Court in Prerna v. State [2019 SCC OnLine Del 11804] [hereinafter, “Prerna”] and Amit Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi [CRL.M.C. 5523/2024, decided on 22.07.2024] [hereinafter, “Amit Kumar”]. Both these cases were also in respect of FIRs registered under Section 3 of the Act. 4. In Prerna, the issue was decided as follows: “2. It is not in dispute that the complainant and the IO in the present case is the same officer and as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant has investigated the case and if he makes deposition before the court then the conviction will be in his credit. However, the complainant being the IO of the case is against the natural justice and fair trial. 3. Similar issue came before this Court in Crl.M.C. 4544/2019 decided on 03.12.2019 wherein, the complainant was a police officer who himself investigated the present case and filed chargesheet. This court held, it is well-settled law that the complainant and IO cannot be the same, however, in the present case, also it happened. Thus, the chargesheet, in the present case, suffers from defects and the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the offences mentioned in the chargesheet. 4. In case of Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 has held as under:— “The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer “is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth” 5. In the State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1991 AIR 1260, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:— “Investigation is a delicate painstaking and dextrous process. Ethical conduct is absolutely essential for investigative 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:03 CRL.M.C. 6857/2026 professionalism…. Therefore, before countenancing such allegations of mala fides or bias it is salutary and an onerous duty and responsibility of the court, not only to insist upon making specific and definite allegations of personal animosity against the Investigating Officer at the start of the investigation but also must insist to establish and prove them from the facts and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court….” 6. It is observed in State v. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369 that the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court by stating that the officer who had registered the crime, also investigated the said case. According to the submission advanced on behalf of the accused, the crime ought to have been investigated by another independent officer and not by P.W.6 (complainant). Accordingly, the High Court found substance in the submission and acquitted the accused. 7. In Laltu Prasad v. State of West Bengal, 2017 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 237 (Calcutta) (DB), held that the complainant himself acted as the investigating officer by violating the principles of fair and impartial investigation, but should not be resorted to and it is a disturbing feature. 8. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts of the present case and the settled position of law, I hereby quash the in criminal case No. 58944/2016 and FIR No. 520/2015 dated 10.09.2015 under section 3 of The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 and emanating proceedings thereto qua the petitioner.” [Emphasis supplied.] The aforesaid view was also followed in Amit Kumar. 5. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the FIR and the chargesheet, filed before the Trial Court, which show that SI Surender Singh is both the complaint, and the IO. 6. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, states, upon instructions from SI Surender Singh, who is personally present in Court, that the complaint was investigated in the present case, by the complainant himself. The only distinction sought to be drawn from the cases at hand, is that the Magistrate’s Court has, in the present case, already taken cognizance of the offence. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:03 CRL.M.C. 6857/2026 7. To my mind, this distinction does not create any ground to depart from the binding judgments referred to above. This Court has held that such an investigation itself is flawed on the fundamental ground of natural justice. In the face of these judgments, subsequent cognizance taken by the Magistrate’s Court without reference to this issue, cannot expose the petitioner to a criminal trial based on such investigation. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, and following the judgments referred to above, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 369/2022, dated 29.11.2022, registered at police station Timarpur, alongwith proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 ‘B’/AD/ 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 19/09/2026 at 11:10:03