Mr. Vineet Mishra v. State (The NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~49 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 7645/2025 & CRL.M.A. Nos. 32001-02/2025 MR. VINEET MISHRA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Pavan Narang, Senior Advocate with Ms.

Priyanka Das, Ms.

Aishwarya Chhabra, Ms.

Abhirohini and Ms. Nishat Nafisa Ahmed, Advocates.

versus STATE (THE NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Yadav, PS Vasant Kunj North.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 31.10.2025 1.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 146/2024 dated 04.07.2024, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North for the offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS'). The chargesheet has been filed in the present case for the offences under Sections 106(1)/289/238/3(5) of the BNS. 2.

The FIR was registered pursuant to the information received about the electrocution and death of the victim in the property belonging to the petitioner. The chargesheet was The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

subsequently filed. It is alleged that the petitioner was negligent in managing the property.

3.

The petitioner claims that the property was under renovation and was given to a contractor for the said purpose. It is claimed that the victim was electrocuted from one water pump which was being installed in the property.

4.

It is the case of the petitioner that the renovation work was handed over to the contractor and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any accident that may have occurred in the property.

5.

The petitioner also claims that at the time of the incident he was not in Delhi. He relies upon the copy of the boarding pass annexed with the present petition as well as the invoice of the hotel in Chennai in order to show that from 02.07.2024 to 04.07.2024, the petitioner was in Chennai. The incident had occurred on 03.07.2024.

6.

The perusal of the chargesheet indicates that the said aspects, as noted above, have not been investigated by the Police. The evidence, as pointed out by the petitioner, is a relevant material. The principles of justice demand that the petitioner be given the opportunity to present this evidence before the trial progresses any further.

7.

Allowing the police to conduct further investigation ensures that no relevant evidence is excluded from the case, thereby safeguarding the petitioner's right to a fair trial. Additionally, it ensures that the trial proceeds on the basis of all relevant and available evidence, allowing the Court to arrive at a just and informed decision.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

8.

In view of the above, even though the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage, the petitioner at the same time cannot be left high and dry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Police is hereby directed to investigate the above noted aspects as part of further investigation and shall file a supplementary chargesheet, including the findings in that regard. 9.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 31, 2025 DU The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.