IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Harshvardhan Goel S/o Shri Surender Goel – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (Crl) No. 1442 of 2024, Crl. M.A. No. 22255 of 2025
Decided On : 09-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges order and fir registration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. partnership details and alleged misappropriation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 31) |
| 3. complaints and orders regarding fir and investigations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's review of police findings and evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 35) |
| 5. arguments regarding jurisdiction and errors in orders. (Para 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. jurisdictional limits and correct legal process outlined. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. specific allegations of financial wrongdoing. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36) |
| 8. final decision and dismissal of petition. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to challenge the Order dated 09.04.2024 whereby the learned ASJ has set aside the Order of the learned M.M dismissing the Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and has directed registration of FIR.
2. Furthermore, the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0192/2024 dated 09.04.2024 under Section 420 /120B IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar consequent to the Orders of the learned ASJ dated 09.04.2024.
3. Briefly stated, a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C along with Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., was filed by Shri Kanik Goyal Respondent No.3 before the learned M.M. It was averred in the Complaint by Respondent No.3/Complainant that Shri Harshvardhan Goel/Petitioner along with Akhil Goyal (brother of the Complainant), had formed a Partnership Firm M/s Goyal and Goel Stainless Steels vide Partnership Deed dated 16.06.2018 whereby both the Partners had equal share of 50% each. Shri Akhil Goyal died in a road accident on 18.03.2021 in suspicious circumstances. The Firm had its office at rented premises bearing No.K-283, Pocket A, Sector-3, Bawana from 06.07.2018 till December, 2020. Thereafter, the Office was shifted to property bearing No.278, Pocket J, Sector-1, Bawana, Delhi.
4. The Complainant asserted that the annual turnover of the Partnership Firm was around Rs.3.5 Crores, at the time of the demise of the brother. Shri Surender Goel, father of Harshvardhan Goel, was the Proprietor of the Firm by the name and style of M/s Goel Metal and Strips Co. having its Office at Wazirpur, New Delhi.
5. It was claimed that Surender Goel, his wife Sunita Goel and Harshvardhan Goel along with other associates, started interfering in the affairs of the Partnership Firm. It came to their notice that they all in connivance with each other, raised Demand Bill/Notice in the name of the Partnership Firm which were found to be forged and fabricated as the address in the Invoices and Bills was of K-283, Bawana, Delhi even though the Partnership Firm was having its Office at J-278, Bawana, Delhi. It was further claimed that the Accused persons raised fake and fabricated registration vehicle No. i.e. DL01LQ9983, DL0145665, DL01LAB7218 and DL01LW3042, through which the alleged goods were supplied. All the documents were found to be fake and fabricated as no such Registration numbers exist. It was claimed that the documents have been forged in order to fulfil their criminal acts and for siphoning off the huge amount from the Partnership Firm, in their Bank Account.
6. The Partnership Firm had an account in Axis Bank, Branch Ashok Vihar. The Accused persons made illegal demands of money, as generated on the basis of the false and fabricated documents. After the demise of Shri Akhil Goyal, Harshvardhan Goel with mala fide intention conspired with his family members and got the Mobile Banking Services such as OTP, transaction messages stopped and thereafter, did the transactions of huge amount in their account from the Company’s Bank Account in Axis Bank. It is claimed that if the Bank officials had been informed about the death of one Partner, then the account would have been freezed, but the Accused deliberately did not do so in connivance with the Bank Offici
The court affirmed the necessity of police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C when material evidence is not within the complainant’s reach, correcting a jurisdictional error by the learned MM.
The police are mandated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and the credibility of the information is not a prerequisite for such registration.
The court emphasized the need for investigation into the allegations and the premature nature of the petition for quashing.
Deviation from loan agreements and misappropriation of loan funds constitute a cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust, warranting the registration of an FIR.
The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.
Under CrPC 156(3) pre-cognizance, Magistrate assesses prima facie case solely from complaint; cannot rely on police report. Pre-BNSS applications proceed under CrPC savings clause (BNSS 531).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.