* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 14^th October, 2025 Pronounced on: 08^th December, 2025 + CRL.M.C.7185/2025, CRL.M.A. 30175/2025 (stay)

30176/2025 (Exemption)

1. VICKY S/o Jaibhan R/o H.No. RZ-72, Village Mangolpur Khurd, Delhi-110083 …Petitioner No.1

2. JAIBHAN S/o Ramkishan R/o H.No. RZ-72, Village Mangolpuri Khurd, Delhi-110083 ….Petitioner No.2 Through: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Ms.

Pooja, Mr. Deepak and Mr.

Khush, Advocates.

versus STAE (NCT OF DELHI)

Through SHO; PS: Mundka ….Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners, to set-aside the Order dated 23.12.2024 of Ld. ASJ-05, Delhi in Crl. Rev. No. 298/2019 whereby the Ld. ASJ has upheld the Order of Ld. MM dated 26.07.2019 discharging the Respondent for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) while the discharge under other Sections

353/333/341/506/34 of IPC, has been set-aside.

2. The Case of the Prosecution is that FIR No. 653/2015 dated 20.12.2015 under Section 186/353/332/341/506/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Mundka, on the Complaint of Mr. Naresh Kumar, the driver of DTC Bus bearing No. DL1PC7187. He stated that on 20.12.2015, he was driving his DTC Bus from Bahadurgarh to Karampura. At about 06:00 pm, he was on Rohtak Road Near Ghevra Mor, a small Tempo bearing registration No. DL-1L R3159, which was plying alongside the bus, was not being driven in an appropriate manner. The Complainant blew horns many a times to give him side, but the Tempo Driver failed to give him way. At about 06:25 PM, when they reached near Gali No. 6, Mundka Factory Area, the driver of the Tempo stopped his Tempo in front of his Bus. The driver and conduct of the Tempo got down and caught hold of the hand and collar of the Complainant and pulled him down from the Bus. Thereafter, they started giving him fists and legs blow. On his raising the alarm, the passenger of the Bus intervened and rescued him from the two assailants.

Someone called the PCR.

3. On his Statement, FIR No. 653/2015 dated 20.12.2015 under Section 186/353/332/341/506/34 IPC got registered at Police Station Mundka. On completion of the investigations, the Charge-Sheet was filed before the Ld.

MM.

4. At the stage of framing of Charge, the Ld. MM noted in the Order dated 26.07.2019 that no formal Complaint for the offence under S.186 IPC as mandated under Section 195 CrPC, had been filed in the Court. Reference was made to the Judgment of Gurinder Singh vs. State, 63 (1996) DLT 104 and Vasudev vs. State, 1984 (7) DRJ 248 wherein it was held that when the Complaint under Section 195 CrPC, has not been made to the Court in respect of offence under Section 186 IPC, then the Charge-Sheet in toto along with other offences, is liable to be discharged. The Petitioners, Vicky and Jaibhan, the two Accused in the Charge-Sheet, were accordingly, discharged, by the Ld. MM.

5. However, the State preferred Revision Petition No. 298/2019 against the Order on discharge. The Ld. ASJ in the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024, considered the rival contentions and noted that non-compliance of the requirements of 195 CrPC is fatal to the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC, but it does not bar the trial of the Accused for the distinct offences though arising out of the same cause of action. The Impugned Order of the Ld. MM was thus, modified and the discharge of the Petitioners for the offences under Section 353/333/341/506/34 IPC was set-aside and they were directed to face the trial.

6. The petitioners/accused have challenged the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 of Ld. ASJ on the grounds that the Ld. Revisio