Sunita v. State of NCT of Delhi

J U D G M E N T

¶1By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.08/2025 dated 10.06.2025 registered at Police Station2 Vigilance, Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19883 read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua her.

¶2Succinctly put, the brother of the complainant lodged a case at PS Govind Puri against the complainant and his family members. When the complainant, along with his family members, went to meet the

1 Hereinafter referred to as "BNSS" 2 Hereinafter referred to as "PS" 3 Hereinafter referred to as "PC Act" 4 Hereinafter referred to as "BNS"

Investigating Officer ASI Sushil Sharma5, at PS Govind Puri on

07.06.2025, he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for removing the names of his minor daughters. Upon the complainant expressing his inability to pay the said amount, he reduced the demand to Rs.10,000/-.

¶3Thereafter, as per instructions of co-accused ASI Sushil Sharma, the complainant handed over a sum of Rs.5,000/- of the total demanded amount to the petitioner herein, who was running a tea stall near the gate of PS Govind Puri.

¶4Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint at PS Vigilance against the co-accused ASI Sushil Sharma, after which a trap was laid.

¶5During the trap proceedings, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the petitioner at her tea stall, who then entered the PS and handed over the said currency notes to co-accused ASI. Thereafter, the raiding team in presence of panch witnesses recovered the same currency notes from the possession of the co-accused ASI.

¶6Based on these facts, the present FIR was registered against the co-accused ASI and the petitioner herein.

¶7The petitioner herein seeks quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua her.

¶8At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of a 'public servant' under the PC Act, and that she is a divorcee operating a small tea stall outside PS

5 Hereinafter referred to as "co-accused ASI"

Govind Puri and has no connection with the police department nor has any authority to influence the outcome of any criminal case.

¶9Drawing attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the alleged demand of illegal gratification originated exclusively from the co-accused ASI, and that there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had either initiated and/ or participated in the demand for illegal gratification. As such, since demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act qua the petitioner, the whole prosecution case against her cannot sustain. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.204/2024 entitled "Mr. Murali Krishna R. v. State of Karnataka".

¶10Learned counsel then submitted that since the case of the prosecution rests upon the trap proceedings which led to recovery of Rs.5,000/- from the co-accused ASI, which was handed over by the petitioner, which, at best, indicates passive physical act which by itself does not constitute an offence inasmuch as the petitioner was lacking the requisite mens rea since she had no prior knowledge that the money handed over by the complainant constitutes illegal gratification.

¶11Learned counsel further submitted that the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the BNS are not made out against the petitioner as there is no material to suggest any prior agreement between the petitioner and the co-accused ASI.

¶12Per contra, learned APP submitted that the material collected during investigation establishes that the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence. The petitioner was working as a conduit on behalf of the

co-accused ASI in a pre-planned manner. The learned APP also handed over the Status Report, which is taken on record.

¶13Learned APP further submitted that the CDR analysis also shows that the petitioner was telephonically in touch with the co-accused ASI four times on 07.06.2025 i.e. when the complainant first gave Rs.5,000/-, and three times on the date of trap i.e. 10.06.2025. The learned APP further submitted that the CCTV footage, audio recording and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS also corroborate the case of the prosecution.

¶14This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP, as also gone through the materials on record.

¶15Quashing an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection only whence the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against the accused. While doing so, this Court is not to conduct a mini-trial by sifting through the evidence, assessing probabilities, and/ or weighing the credibility of witnesses, as these are all matters of trial. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal6 delineated the categories wherein quashing of FIR can be sought as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power

6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶16Regarding essential ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act being absent qua the petitioner, it cannot be ignored that the present FIR is also registered under Section 61(2) of the BNS alleging criminal conspiracy. Thus, the allegations therein against the petitioner, have to be considered in their entirety.

¶17Regarding the petitioner being privy to the whole act, the present FIR reads as under:- "… …मुझे ASI सुशील ने कहा कक रिश्वत की िकम थाने के गेट से ननकलकि दाई तिफ एक चाय वाली औित ने चाय की िेहेडी लगा िखी है उसको पैसे दे दो। उस समय मेरे पास रुपये 5000/- जेब में थे सो मैंने रेहेड़ी पर जाकर उस चाय वाली औरत को रुपये 5000/- नकद ददये। उन पैसों को गिनकर उस औरत ने कहा की यह तो दस हजार नहीीं हैं पााँच हजार है। फिर मैंने कहा फक अभ़ी हम 5000 रुपए दे रहें हैं 5000/- बाद में दे देंिे। इस बात पर उस औरत ने अपने मोबाइल िोन से ASI सुश़ील को िोन ममलाया और कहा फक 5000/- रुपए आ िए हैं।

XXX

XXX

XXX

जो मशकायतकताा Gurdeep Singh थाने के बाहर चाय फक ठेली पर पहुींचा जहााँ पर चायवाली लडकी Sunita से बात करी और जो Sunita ने अपने मोबाइल फोन से ASI Sushil से बात करके मशकायतकताा

िुरदीप मसींह से ASI Sushil फक बात करवाई जो बात करने के बाद ASI Sushil ने कहा फक मैं चाय वाली ठेली के पास ही आ रहा ह ाँ इसके बाद ASI Sushil थाने के बाहर आया और मशकायतकताा िुरदीप मसींह से बातच़ीत करने लिा और ररश्वत के पैसे चाय वाली लडकी सुऩीता को देने के मलए कहा और वापपस थाने में आकर Women Help Desk/Public Facilitation Room में आकर बैठ िया | जो मशकायतकताा ने ASI Sushil के माींिने पर और उसके कहने पर ररश्वत फक रकम के Rs. 5000/- (500-500 Rs. के 10 नोट ) जजनकी details रेड ररपोटा में दजा है, चाय वाली लडकी सुऩीता को दे ददए | जो सुऩीता ने ररश्वत फक रकम के 5000 रूपए पहऩी हुई lower पैंट फक बाय़ीीं जेब में रख मलए और चाय देने के बहाने थाने के अन्दर जाकर मींददर के साथ ही बने कमरे में ASI Sushil को दे ददए XXX

XXX

XXX जिस पि मन Insp. मय िेड िंग पाटी ने थाना गोववन्दपुिी के बाहि चाय कक ठेली पि मौिूद लडकी जिसका नाम पता बाद पूछताछ सुनीता D/o िाम िी गगिी R/o Om Enclave , Gali No 5, Badarpur, new Delhi मालूम हुआ को काबू ककया .At this time, it is lodged that a Tehrir prepared by Inspr. kusum Dangi No. D-I/287 (PIS No. 16990003) has been received to SI/DO PS/Vigilance through HC Ramesh No.147/VIG for registration of FIR. From the contents of Tehrir a case u/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in the year of 2018) and u/s 61(2) BNS 2023, is made out against ASI Sushil Sharma and of PS Govind puri ,South East, District-South East, Delhi. Accordingly, a case FIR no. 08/2025 is registered, u/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in the year of 2018) and u/s 61(2) BNS 2023 and further investigation of the case is handed over to Inspr. R.Srinivasan No D1/105 (PIS No. 16960230) by the order of senior officers. Copy of FIR is being sent to Spl. Judge POC, Act and senior Officers through special messanger. SI/DO जजसने प छताछ पर बतलाया फक उसने ASI Sushil के कहने पर मशकायतकताा िुरदीप मसींह से ररश्वत़ी रकम के 5000/- रूपये प्राप्त फकये थे | जो उसने 3 ददन

पहले भ़ी िुरदीप मसींह से ASI Sushil के कहने पर ररश्वत़ी रकम के 5000/- रूपये लेकर ASI Sushil को ददए थे | जो आज मशकायतकताा से रूपये लेकर उसने थाने के अन्दर जाकर पैसे ASI Sushil को मींददर के पास वाले कमरे में दे ददए है और ASI Sushil फक तुरींत तलाश़ी लेने पर ररश्वत़ी रकम बरामद फक जा सकत़ी है" [Emphasis supplied]

¶18The above reflects that the FIR specifically records that on

07.06.2025 when the complainant first gave Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, she immediately after counting remarked that "… …यह तो दस हजार नह ीं हैं, पााँच हजार है… …" and thereafter contacted co-accused ASI to inform him that Rs.5,000/- had been received.

¶19Further, on the date of the trap also, the petitioner herself contacted the co-accused ASI, when the complainant reached her tea stall, whereafter the said ASI came to the tea stall and instructed the complainant to hand over the money to her. After receiving the money, the petitioner went inside the Police Station and handed it over to ASI, from whose possession the amount was ultimately recovered.

¶20The aforesaid chain of events when considered cumulatively reveals that the petitioner was not a fly by night innocent operator, and she was privy to everything and she received the money on behalf of the co-accused ASI as his intermediary/ conduit. This, prima facie, indicates that the petitioner was aware of everything.

¶21Consequently, under such circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy along with co-accused ASI.

¶22In any event, it is well-settled that a criminal conspiracy, by its very nature, is ordinarily hatched in secrecy and may have to be inferred from

the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the persons involved. The prosecution, in this regard, is not required to demonstrate a direct evidence, i.e. precise point in time when the alleged agreement or meeting of minds took place, as the same are matters of trial.

¶23Additionally, though the CDR analysis have to be weighed during trial, however, it shows that the petitioner was in regular touch with the co-accused ASI around the same time when the complainant came to her. There is also the statement of the complainant under Section 183 of the BNSS which speaks for itself.

¶24Thus, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner to Mr. Murali Krishna R. (supra) is misplaced, since FIR therein was registered only under Section 7(a) of the PC Act and the offence of criminal conspiracy was not involved therein.

¶25As such, for the afore-stated reasons and analysis, the petitioner is not able to make out a case for quashing the present FIR, at this stage.

¶26Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J. AUGUST 31, 2026/So/GA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: August 03, 2026 % Pronounced on: August 31, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010089862026 + SUNITA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raja Choudhary and Ms. Anushika Mishra, Advocates Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocates with Insp. R. Srinivasan, Vigilance CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE