IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:29.10.2025 Judgment delivered on:19.01.2026 + CRL.M.C. 4105/2025 & CRL.M.A. 17787/2025, CRL.M.A.

26097/2025 ANIL KHURANA ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Jha and Ms. Ragini Kapoor, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.

Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Ms. Suruchi Jaiswal, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 24.05.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Saket Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.

143/2023.

2. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ set aside the order dated 25.11.2022 whereby the learned Magistrate while noting that prima facie there existed sufficient grounds to proceed for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) had summoned Respondent No. 2.

3. Concisely put, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are stated to be brothers and the petitioner, stated to be a citizen of USA, used to reside on the ground floor of H. No. 10/21, East Patel Nagar, Delhi whenever he visited India for holidays. On 05.07.2007, FIR No. 388/2007 was registered at Police Station Patel Nagar for offences under Sections 341/323 of the IPC against the petitioner on a complaint given by Respondent No. 2 whereby it was alleged that the petitioner physically assaulted Respondent No. 2 over a dispute pertaining to the staircase in the house. It was further alleged that the petitioner gave multiple blows and kicks to Respondent No. 2 thereby causing him injuries. Meanwhile a settlement was purportedly executed between the parties alongwith an affidavit by Respondent No. 2 and thereafter the petitioner filed a quashing petition before this Court vide CRL. M.C. 3962/2008. Respondent No. 2 was also impleaded in the said petition.

4. This Court vide order dated 30.08.2012 declined to quash the said FIR noting the stand taken by Respondent No. 2 in his reply affidavit whereby he stated that the deed of settlement and affidavit were forged and fabricated and that Respondent No. 2 was made to sign the same under misrepresentation.

5. Subsequently, the trial concluded and vide judgment dated 28.02.2019, the petitioner was acquitted of the charged offences in view of the contradictions in the version of the prosecution. The petitioner thereafter filed the present complaint being CT Cases 5623/2019 under Sections 499/500 of the IPC read with Sections 193/196/199/209 of the IPC. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 falsely implicated the petitioner in the FIR No. 388/2007 by making false allegations of hurt and wrongful restraint in which the petitioner was subsequently acquitted. The petitioner alleged that due to the said implication, the behaviour of the relatives, neighbours and his friends have changed. The petitioner further alleged that during the pendency of the trial in FIR No. 388/2007, Respondent No. 2 made baseless statements against the petitioner in relation to forgery and fabrication of documents pertaining to the deed of settlement to the friends and family members of the petitioner and that the same are defamatory in nature. The complaint also reflects three instances where the petitioner was allegedly looked down upon by his family/friends in relation to forgery and fabrication of documents in relation to the deed of settlement. It is the case of the petitioner that the institution of a false case coupled with the baseless statements made by Respondent No.2 of the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents have caused damage to the reputation of the petitioner.

6. By order dated 25.11.2022, the learned Magistrate issued summons to Respondent No. 2 while specifically noting that there existed prima facie sufficient grounds to proceed against Respondent No. 2.

7.