In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by Dharmender Kumar seeking to quash FIR No. 934/2016 registered under Sections 376/384/354A/354C/354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station Govind Puri. The judgment, delivered on September 27, 2025, in Dharmender Kumar vs. State and Anr. (W.P.(CRL) 883/2025), focused solely on the maintainability of the petition post-framing of charges, without delving into the merits of the case. Justice Ajay Digpaul held that quashing an FIR after charges have been framed is generally impermissible except in exceptional and rare circumstances, which were absent here.
Background of the Case
The FIR was lodged on December 24, 2016, based on a complaint by the prosecutrix (respondent no. 2), who alleged that the petitioner, whom she met through computer-related work, sexually assaulted her in May 2016 at her office-cum-residence. She claimed he held her hand, spoke obscenely, forced her into a room, had non-consensual intercourse, recorded nude photographs/videos, and threatened to disclose them to her husband. The allegations extended to continued sexual relations under duress, demands for money, requests for intimate photos, and sending obscene messages.
The petitioner was arrested on December 26, 2016, and the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was recorded the same day. He was granted regular bail on January 12, 2017. A chargesheet was filed on September 18, 2018, and the petitioner was summoned on October 25, 2018.
In 2024, the petitioner filed a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC. On September 25, 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), South-East District, Saket Courts, discharged him from offences under Sections 384/354A/354C/354D IPC but directed framing of charges under Sections 376/376(2)(n) IPC in SC No. 519/2018.
The writ petition was filed in January 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Article 226 of the Constitution, initially seeking to quash both the FIR and the charge order. However, on March 19, 2025, the petitioner withdrew the prayer challenging the charge order, confining the plea to quashing the FIR. A separate criminal revision petition (No. 150/2025) challenging the charge order was also withdrawn on May 15, 2025, with liberty to file afresh if needed.
Submissions on Maintainability
The Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) for the State, Rahul Tyagi, argued that the petition was not maintainable as the case had progressed to the stage of recording prosecution evidence after charges were framed. He contended that once cognizance is taken and charges framed, ensuing proceedings stem from judicial orders, which cannot be indirectly quashed by targeting the FIR without challenging those orders via statutory remedies like revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Reliance was placed on:
- Neeta Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024 (4) MWN (CR.) 337), where the Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot proceed with a writ petition if investigation culminates in a chargesheet and cognizance is taken during its pendency.
- Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (Criminal Appeal No. 1407/2012), emphasizing that Section 482 CrPC powers are residual and inapplicable where specific remedies exist.
- Iqbal alias Bala & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ((2023) 8 SCC 734), supporting the need for Trial Courts to assess materials for discharge.
The ASC highlighted that the petitioner’s withdrawal of the revision petition barred further relief, and quashing the FIR would nullify subsisting judicial orders collaterally.
In response, Suhail Shah, counsel for the petitioner, asserted maintainability on grounds of abuse of process, citing absurd and improbable allegations motivated by personal grudge after the petitioner served a legal notice to the complainant. He argued the investigating officer’s failure to conduct a proper probe justified quashing.
Reliance was placed on:
- Iqbal alias Bala (supra), allowing courts to read between the lines in vexatious proceedings.
- Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) 12354/2024), distinguishing discharge applications from quashing petitions, where broader challenges (including abuse of process) are permissible.
- Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1884/2013), permitting quashing post-chargesheet if no offence is disclosed or proceedings abuse the process.
High Court’s Decision
Justice Digpaul observed that quashing an FIR post-framing of charges is generally not permissible except in rare cases. No exceptional circumstances were presented here to depart from this position. The court found the State’s reliance on Neeta Singh and Amit Kapoor well-founded, reiterating that judicial orders post-cognizance must be challenged via statutory fora, not writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner’s cited judgments were distinguished as they involved quashing before charges were framed. The court noted the petitioner’s withdrawal of the revision petition and confinement to quashing the FIR, concluding that the best course was to challenge the charge order via efficacious remedies.
The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with no opinion on merits. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. Pending applications were disposed of.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguards in criminal law, emphasizing that post-charge quashing pleas must meet a high threshold of exceptionality. It underscores the preference for statutory remedies like revision over writ petitions to avoid bypassing judicial hierarchies. The decision may guide lower courts in handling similar pleas, balancing expeditious justice with preventing abuse of process in sensitive cases like sexual offences. It also highlights the evolving application of BNSS provisions in quashing matters.
Case Details: Dharmender Kumar vs. State and Anr. (W.P.(CRL) 883/2025)
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 