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
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.