Disputed Facts Must Go to Trial, Not Be Silenced Through 482 CrPC: Delhi High Court Rejects Quashing of FIR in Family Brawl Over Property

“Courts Cannot Conduct Mini-Trials or Evaluate Contradictions in Medical Records at Pre-Trial Stage” –  Delhi High Court, in a reportable judgment by Justice Girish Kathpalia, dismissed a set of petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of FIR No. 355/2024 involving serious allegations of wrongful restraint and physical assault stemming from a volatile family property dispute. The Court categorically held that “allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences”, and that “it would be unjustified to invoke inherent powers merely because the accused claims contradictions in medical records or witness accounts.”

The Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on each petitioner, ruling that the petitions were “completely devoid of merits and frivolous,” and directed the Trial Court to proceed uninfluenced by any observation in the order.

The criminal proceedings arose from a bitter family feud concerning the possession of a multi-storey property at Jeewan Nagar, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi. The complainant, Dwarika Prashad, who had been residing on the fourth floor for 13 years, alleged that his cousins, Amardeep Soni and Sandeep Soni, forcibly attempted to break open his floor’s lock on November 3, 2024, which escalated into a full-blown physical altercation involving multiple family members, including women and children.

According to the FIR, when the complainant intervened, he and his relatives were allegedly assaulted with hammers, iron rods, and sticks, leading to multiple injuries and medical treatment at AIIMS Trauma Centre. The police filed an FIR under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). A cross-FIR was also registered against the complainant's side, and the matter was chargesheeted before the magistrate.

The accused, including Amardeep, Sandeep, Harsh Soni, and Kali Prasad, approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR and the proceedings.

The central legal issue was whether the High Court could quash the FIR on the basis of alleged contradictions in MLCs, absence of assailants’ names in medical records, and a video showing one complainant speaking on the phone before the incident—which the petitioners argued showed the incident was preplanned.

Justice Kathpalia, however, ruled that such contentions were not legally sustainable at the pre-trial stage. “By holding that on these grounds, the trial would positively culminate into acquittal, this court would be conducting a mini-trial… which cannot be carried out in these proceedings.” [Para 9]

The Court made it clear that contradictions in the number of assailants or inconsistencies between witness statements and medical records were issues that could only be addressed during trial.

“These aspects can be explained by the concerned witnesses once they step into the box during trial.” [Para 9]

On the video footage relied upon by the petitioners, the Court noted:

“Merely because one person in the video footage is visible speaking over mobile phone prior to incident, it is not possible (nor permissible in these proceedings) to draw a positive inference that the said call was being made to police in preplanned manner.” [Para 8]

Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC Are Exceptional, Not Routine

The Court extensively referred to precedent from the Supreme Court, reiterating that the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, and only in the “rarest of rare” cases.

Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court emphasised: “The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” [Para 6.2]

In rejecting the petitioners’ claim that contradictions in the evidence warranted quashing, the Court stated:

“This court lacks jurisdiction to minutely analyze the material collected by the investigators.” [Para 9]

Quoting from CBI v. Aryan Singh (2023), the Court reiterated: “At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.” [Para 6.7]

Prima Facie Case Made Out Under Section 126(2) BNS

The Court found that a prima facie case of wrongful restraint was clearly disclosed from the FIR and supporting materials.

“By obstructing the complainant from entering his house on the fourth floor of the premises, where he has been residing for past 13 years, the petitioners wrongfully restrained him, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 126(2) BNS.” [Para 10]

The Court clarified that the framing of further charges remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Trial Court, which shall proceed independently.

“The trial court while deciding the question about the charges made out shall not be bound by the above observations and shall take independent view.” [Para 10]

Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation

Calling the petitions a misuse of judicial process, Justice Kathpalia dismissed all four with exemplary costs of ₹10,000 per petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

“Being completely devoid of merits and frivolous, all these petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by each of the petitioners within one week.” [Para 11]

The judgment reaffirms a critical principle in criminal jurisprudence: Courts must not quash criminal trials at inception merely because facts are disputed or evidence appears shaky. The High Court cannot transform into a fact-finding authority or a trial court under the guise of Section 482 CrPC.

By refusing to short-circuit the criminal process in the face of a violent and multi-person family dispute, the Delhi High Court has once again underlined that “trial is the proper forum for determination of truth, not the High Court’s inherent powers.”

Date of Decision: July 22, 2025