$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1672/2023, CRL.M.A. 15535/2023 & CRL.M.A.

34279/2023 DEEPAINDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arundhati Katju, Senior Advocate along with Mr. ACI Chaudhary and Mr. Shristi Borthakur along with Petitioner in person.

versuss STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State along with Insp. Pramod Gupta, PS. Anti-Corruption Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 26.08.2025

1. The Present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr.P.C.”]) seeks quashing of FIR No. 03/2012, registered on 31^st January, 2012 at P.S. Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), under Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,3 together will all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

1 “BNSS” 3 “PC Act”

W.P.(CRL) 1672/2023 Page 1 of 12

2.1. On 31^st January, 2012, FIR No. 03/2012 was registered against the Petitioner at P.S. Anti-Corruption Branch. This case originated from a complaint lodged by a builder. He alleged that one Dinesh Jain informed him that a case was pending against him in the Income Tax Office. Mr. Jain, who was acquainted with the Petitioner, offered to have the matter “settled.” He then introduced the complainant to the Petitioner, who allegedly demanded INR 6 lakhs for ensuring the complaint would be closed. On 30^th January, 2012, the demand was reduced to INR 2 lakhs.

2.2. On the following day, the Petitioner is stated to have called the complainant to Jain’s office at about 5:00 p.m. for delivery of the agreed amount. A trap was laid, during which the Petitioner was apprehended while allegedly demanding and receiving the sum of INR 2 lakhs. The money was recovered from the drawer of Jain’s office desk. Handwash and drawer-wash tests using phenolphthalein powder were carried out, allegedly confirming the recovery.

2.3. The FIR was then formally registered and the Petitioner arrested and the investigation commenced. Sanction for prosecution was accorded on 1^st May, 2015. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed and by order dated 13^th October, 2023, the Petitioner was summoned to face trial.

3. The Petitioner assails the impugned FIR primarily on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in the investigation, which, it is contended, violates the fundamental right to a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the protracted and lethargic conduct of the investigating agency renders the continuance of the proceedings oppressive and unsustainable. Her submissions may be summarised as follows:

W.P.(CRL) 1672/2023 Page 2 of 12

3.1. The FIR was registered on 31^st January, 2012. Sanction for prosecution was accorded on 1^st May, 2015. Yet, despite the availability of sanction at such an early stage, no chargesheet was filed for over eleven and a half years. This extraordinary delay speaks for itself and reflects a complete failure of diligence on the part of the investigating agency.

3.2. The delay cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. On the contrary, he has cooperated with the authorities whenever called upon, though such occasions were sporadic and infrequent. The Petitioner cannot, therefore, be made to suffer the consequences of investigative apathy for which he bears no responsibility.

3.3. The prolonged pendency of investigation has, caused irreparable prejudice. Professionally, the Petitioner has been kept under suspension, denied increments, grade pay, and promotional avenues. He has lived under the stigma of unresolved allegations for more than a decade, enduring litigation and the associated social disgrace, all without the filing of a chargesheet that could test the allegations in court in a time bound manner.

3.4. The unexplained lap