Rahul Gupta v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS
$~13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2418/2020, CRL.M.A. 17100/2020 RAHUL GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Yash Prakash and Mr. Ishan Jain, Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State + CRL.M.C. 1134/2021, CRL.M.A. 5778/2021 RAHUL GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Yash Prakash and Mr. Ishan Jain, Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State with SI Neetu, PS C.R Park
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 21.11.2025 1.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
0280/2020 dated 20.11.2020 registered under Section 406/409/420/477A IPC at P.S. C.R. Park and FIR No. 0058/2021 dated 08.03.2021 registered under Sections 420/409/34 IPC at P.S. C.R. Park on the same allegations that FIR No. 0234/2020 dated 27.09.2020 has been registered at Udyog Vihar, Gurugram.
2.
The Petitioner submits that the present FIR which is based on the same The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
facts as FIR No. 234/2020 is not maintainable for which, reliance is placed on TT Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181. 3.
The Petitioner was forced to resign, after which he launched his own company by the name of Travel Monarch, to make his ends utilising his long experience in the travel industry. The registration of FIR by the Complainant, is an outcome of business rivalry.
4.
Even if the subsequent events came to the knowledge and involvement of more Accused was disclosed, the legal remedy for the Complainant was to make statements before the concerned officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the previously registered FIR No. 0234/2020, rather than getting the present FIR registered.
5.
The Petitioner is attempting to improve his statements by resorting to registration of subsequent FIR in regard to the same incident, which is not permitted under Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors (2004) 13 SCC 292.
6.
It is further submitted that all the three FIRs No. 0246/2020 dated 05.07.2020, FIR No. 0234/2020 dated 27.09.2020 and FIR No. 0280/2020 dated 20.11.2020 have been filed with an aim to harass the Petitioner, as the Petitioner owes legitimate dues from the Complainant. 7.
A prayer is therefore, made that the FIRs No. 0280/2020 and 0058/2021 be quashed.
8.
Learned Counsel for the Complainant submits that the Chargesheet has been filed and the matter is pending at the stage of arguments on charge. Submissions heard.
9.
Essentially, the ground on which the quashing of aforesaid FIRs is sought is that they pertain to the same incident in respect of which first FIR The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
No. 0234/2020 dated 27.09.2020 has already been registered at Udyog Vihar, Gurugram.
10.
This is a legal objection which can very well be taken at the time of arguments on charge.
11.
The Petitions alongwith pending Applications, are disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take these contentions before the learned Trial Court.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
NOVEMBER 21, 2025 N The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.