$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 7675/2025, CRL.M.A. 32096-32097/2025 MOHIT SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Ms. Deeya Mital, Mr. Samrat Saxena and Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Raj Kumar, PS-Connaught Place.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 28.11.2025

1. The Petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 10^th September, 2024, passed by the JMFC-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Cr. Case No. 45639/2016, for offences under Sections 420/471/406/474/467/473 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.1

2. The proceedings arise out of a complaint under Section 156(3) the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973², wherein the complainant named four individuals, including the Petitioner, as accused. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Trial Court, FIR No. 35/2013 was registered on 17^th March, 2013, under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet dated 12^th May, 2013 was filed only against two

1 “IPC”

of the accused, namely Rajiv Singh and Priya Singh, while Seema Singh was shown in Column No. 12. The Petitioner was not charge-sheeted at this stage. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons on 18^th May, 2013, and thereafter framed charges on 1^st June, 2013.

3. Subsequently, the State filed a supplementary chargesheet on 7^th February, 2018 enclosing therewith the FSL report. In the said chargesheet, apart from the FSL report, it was mentioned as follows:

“Cumulative consideration of the above observations leads to the opinion that the person who wrote the signatures in the red enclosed parts marked $71 to $80 also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked Q322 and 0323.

Note:- The specimen writings in the red enclosed parts marked $66 to $70 and S81 to 595 have not been utilized for the purpose of opinion At the time of filling of main charge sheet of the case alleged persons namely Seema Singh and Mohit Singh were not charge sheeted Therefore, notice Dis 41A Cr.P.C were served to them. They both have joined investigation of the case on 22.01.2018 and they have been interrogated. During interrogation they have confessed that they were also involved and beneficiary of the loans taken from Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited As per evidence collected, statements of witnesses and investigation carried out so far now there are sufficient evidences against accused persons Rajiv Singh, Priya Singh, Seema Singh and Mohit Singh mentioned in Column no. 1. Therefore. supplementary challan U/s U/s 419 420/468/471/473/120B IPC has been prepared. Accused Rajiv Singh and Priya Singh are on court bail. Arrest of accused persons Seema Singh and Mohit Singh have not been affected so far. Therefore, the supplementary charge sheet of the case is submitted against accused persons mention in-column No. 11. It may be clubbed with main file for trial please.”

4. The supplementary chargesheet placed the Petitioner and Seema Singh in Column No. 11; cognizance in respect thereof was taken only on

10^th September, 2024, when the Petitioner was summoned.

2 “CrPC”

5. It is thus argued that once the trial had commenced (charges having been framed and the trial progressing), the State could not have validly invoked Section 41A CrPC and carried out further investigation so as to add the Petitioner as an accused. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 1.. The relevant portions relied upon are reproduced below:

“20. With the introduction of Section 173(8) in CrPC, the police department has been armed with the power to further investigate an offence even after a police report has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Quite obviously, this power continues until the trial can be said to commence in a criminal case. The vexed question before us is as to whether the Magistrate c