Anand Prakash Gupta v. The State NCT Of Delhi And ANR
$~54 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ANAND PRAKASH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr.
Ravi Bhushan, Advocate.
versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:
Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with SI Nivedita, PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Mr.
Sahil Aeron, Mr.
Manoj Sharma and Mr.
Gagan Deep Singh, Advocates for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 07.05.2025 CRL.M.A. 14172/2025 (Exemption) 1.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3213/2025 & CRL.M.A. 14173/2025 (Stay), CRL.M.A. 14174/2025 (for condonation of delay of 91 days in refiling the present petition) 3.
The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 514/2015 dated 19.07.2015 registered at police station Keshav Puram for the offences under Sections 354/354A/354C/506/509/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
4.
The FIR was registered on a complaint given by The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Respondent No.2, who is the wife of Petitioner No.3 and
daughter-in-law of Petitioners Nos.1 and 2.
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was registered on false allegations pursuant to matrimonial disputes between Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.3. He submits that old aged parents of Petitioner No.3 have unnecessarily been dragged in the dispute.
6.
He submits that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are 74 and 69 years of age respectively and have been unnecessarily harassed pursuant to the registration of the present FIR which was registered wayback on 19.07.2015. He submits that despite almost 10 years having elapsed, the trial has not proceeded and the complainant is also not appearing.
7.
He submits that grave prejudice is being caused to the petitioners due to pendency of the trial.
8.
Since the charge sheet has already been filed in the present case and the trial has since proceeded albeit with a delay, this Court does not find it apposite to consider the defence of the petitioners and adjudicate the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR. The same would be subject matter of trial. 9.
However, undisputedly, the FIR was registered on 19.07.2015 and the charge sheet was also filed in the same year and therefore there is an apparent considerable delay. Further, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be senior citizens. 10.
In view of the above, Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are exempted from personal appearance during the pendency of the trial, unless the learned Trial Court finds their personal presence necessary. 11.
The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite recording of evidence and take the matter to its logical conclusion. The petitioners are at liberty to take all arguments at an appropriate The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. stage and file a petition afresh in case it is felt that the trial is
unduly being prolonged at the instance of the complainant. 12.
The learned Trial Court is also requested to not grant unwarranted adjournments to any of the parties. 13.
The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending applications also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 7, 2025 DU The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.