Sanjay Kapur v. State And ANR

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 587/2024, CRL.M.A. 5382/2024 SANJAY KAPUR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Shakti Mann, Advocate.

versus STATE AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Mr.

Sagar Mehlawat, Advocates alongwith ASI Faiyaz Ahmad, P.S.

Sarita Vihar.

Mr. Gaurav Kakar, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 18.07.2024 1.

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0622/2023 registered under Sections 386/419/420 IPC at P.S. Sarita Vihar primarily on the ground that allegations made in the complaint are patently false, inasmuch as, though the complainant has stated that the petitioner has held himself out as a lawyer, the same is not borne out from any material on the record. He submits that the petitioner was only a director of Legal Syndicate Advisory Pvt. Ltd. He also contends that earlier an application was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the complainant, wherein a closure report was filed which supports that no case is made against the petitioner.

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 04/07/2025 at 04:06:26

2.

The petition is vehemently resisted by Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, learned ASC for State and learned counsel for the complainant. They both, on instructions, state that at no point of time any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR was ever filed before the Magistrate. Learned ASC for the State, on instructions from SI Fayaz Ahmad, categorically denies the contention about the filing of any closure report.

3.

Learned counsel for the complainant clarifies that only an application was filed before ld. MM for monitoring of the investigation. 4.

Learned ASC for the State further submits that the petitioner has a Twitter account in which he is, in fact, holding himself as a lawyer and a director of law firm. It is submitted that during investigation, it has come on record that money has been transferred through banking channels to the account of the present petitioner. The Counsel further submits that during investigation, no material has come on record that indicates that either petitioner has a LLB decree or is enrolled as a lawyer. 5.

In view of the above, I find no ground in the present petition, consequently, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 18, 2024 ga 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 04/07/2025 at 04:06:26