Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Amandeep Singh Batra, a music video producer under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 307, 34 and 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), New Delhi and charge sheet filed therein and order dated 28-08-2023 taking cognizance along with consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., dismisses petition raising doubts the truthfulness and merits of the contentions raised which are to be considered during the trial.
The petitioners are victims of false, fabricated, motivated and frivolous prosecution lodged on the basis of a complaint made by Respondent 2 who was having an affair with erstwhile wife of petitioner 1. Petitioner 2 is a close friend as well as business associate of petitioner 1, who has been roped into this false case to harass petitioner 1, as they have known each other for last about 15 years. It is asserted that the FIR was filed as an arm-twisting tactic to pressurize Petitioner 1 to give divorce to his wife and also to use it as tool to pressurize him throughout the Divorce proceedings. Pertinently, after registration of the FIR and after filing of the Charge-Sheet, Petitioner 1 and his wife got divorced.
The complainant is asserted to be an extremely influential person, who runs a number of famous Night Clubs in Delhi. He has close proximity with high-ranking police officials and celebrities and has been using his influence to harass the petitioners. The complainant has also deep-rooted connections with gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar and has also flaunted his close relations with them on social media to intimidate and threaten the petitioners’ and their friends. The complainant has used these relations to threaten and harass petitioner 1, who is living under constant fear of his life and liberty.
It is further asserted that in the FIR in question, the complainant has merely mentioned that he suspects that the unidentified men shot him at the behest of the petitioners. It is further asserted that the entire case against the petitioners is based on mere disclosure statements of co-accused persons and 15 seconds phone call between the purported shooters and petitioner 1, the contents of which admittedly could not be retrieved by the State. There is no whisper of any sentence or word in the entire charge-sheet nor are there any allegations that the shooter called petitioner 2. Even after detailed investigations, the prosecution has not been able find a single piece of evidence to show how and when and where the petitioners have ever met the alleged shooters.
The Court noted that the facts which have been narrated by the petitioners reflect that there may have been a motive which led to the incident of a shootout. However, the complaint specifically avers that on 03-06-2023 the shooters had fired at the complainant at the behest of the two petitioners. It per se discloses a cognizable offence for which an FIR was registered, and the investigation was carried out by the Crime Branch, charge sheet filed on which cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court. Aside from claiming that the investigation has not been carried out in a fair manner, it has not been pointed out on which aspect the investigation is lacking.
The Court further noted that the petitioners are claiming that the entire incident is not supported by any independent evidence as there is nothing to connect the petitioners with the two shooters and also that this entire incident has been faked. Thus, the Court concluded that the truthfulness and the merit of the contentions raised are factors to be considered during the trial, and it cannot be said that at this stage that there is any ground for quashing of the FIR or the proceedings emanating therefrom. The chargesheet has already been filed and the case is at the stage of framing of charge. All the assertions and contentions raised herein essentially are to seek discharge for which arguments may be addressed before the Trial Court.
The Court disposed of the present petition and referred the matter to the Trial Court.
[Amandeep Singh Batra v. State Govt NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 871, decided on 13-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior Advocate with Ms. Devika Mahan & Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Advocates for Petitioner 1
Mr. J. K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Ms. Rishika & Mr. Arjun Syal, Advocates for Petitioner 2
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel for Respondent 1
Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjog Singh Arneja, Mr. Harjas Singh, Advocates for Respondent 2.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
