SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEEPAK MINDA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-8155/2024



##PAGE1##

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 25.09.2025

Pronounced on: 19.12.2025

+ CRL.M.C. 8155/2024

DEEPAK MINDA & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr.

Utkarsh Dwivedi, Mr. Anurag

Mishra, Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Mr.

Yashaswy Ghosh, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP

with SI Chinki Yadav, PS-

Shalimar Bagh.

Mr. Jeevesh Bindal, Advocate

for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023

(earstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

against the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the JMFC-07, North-

West Rohini Court, New Delhi vide which the complainant’s

application under section 311 Cr.P.C., to examine PW-8 was allowed.

CRL.M.C. 8155/2024 Page 1 of 14

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI PRUTHI

Signing Date:19.12.2025

19:31:48

##PAGE2##

Brief facts of the case:

2. The FIR records that on 10.06.2005 at about 8:00 a.m., while

the complainant, Harish Bindal, was reading the newspaper at his

residence at AE-167, Shalimar Bagh, his wife allegedly injured herself

by breaking her own bangle and called the police, following which she

was taken to the hospital. At around 8:30 a.m., after she had left, his

brothers-in-law Sunil Minda and Deepak Minda, accompanied by

Kunal Minda, Ashwani Jain, Purakh Chand Minda and Kalpana

Minda, allegedly entered his house forcibly, demanding withdrawal of

a pending Rs. 3.5 crore credit case, and on his refusal, abused,

assaulted, and dragged him into the street, during which Deepak

Minda allegedly struck him, breaking his tooth and causing bleeding.

The complainant dialled the PCR, and during the scuffle, Sunil

Minda's spectacle glass fell and was retained by him. The medical

examination (M.E. No. 39841) declared his injuries grievous, leading

to registration of the aforesaid FIR under Sections 325/452/34 IPC.

Submissions of the petitioner:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned

order dated 24.09.2024 is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and

liable to be set aside. It was submitted that under Sections 301 and 302

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, though a private person may

appoint a pleader to assist the Public Prosecutor, the conduct of

prosecution remains exclusively within the domain of the Public

CRL.M.C. 8155/2024 Page 2 of 14

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI PRUTHI

Signing Date:19.12.2025

19:31:48

##PAGE3##

Prosecutor, unless specific permission is granted to the private party to

conduct the trial in terms of Section 302(1), which has admittedly

never been sought by Respondent No. 2 (complainant).

4. Consequently, the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.,

at the instance of the complainant is not maintainable. Reliance was

placed upon the judgements of the Kerala High Court

in Somasundaram v. P. Chandra Bose &Anr. 2001 Crl. L.J. 4370 and

of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rekha Murarka v. State of West

Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 474, to submit that the Public Prosecutor holds

paramount status in criminal proceedings. It was emphasized that PW-

8 (SI Ramphal) has deposed strictly in terms of his statement recorded

under Section 161 of the Code and has referred to DD No. 16A dated

10.06.2005, the complainant’s earlier application under Section 165 of

the Code was dismissed on 18.05.2024, as reflected in the testimony

of PW-8 dated 18.05.2024, and therefore, a subsequent application

under Section 311 on the same premise is impermissible.

5. It was further submitted that the complainant's reliance on the

Medical Examination Report of Sunita Bindal (Ex. PW-3/A) is

untenable as the said document was neither part of the chargesheet nor

prepared by PW-8, it was produced by PW-3 during his examination

in chief, objections were duly raised to its production, and in any case,

PW-3 Tarun Bindal’s presence cannot be established thereby. The trial

CRL.M.C. 8155/2024 Page 3 of 14

Signature Not Verified

Digi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top