* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 26^th November, 2025 Pronounced on: 14^th January, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 4716/2025, CRL.M.A. 20447/2025 VIJAY THAKUR S/o LATE MR. M. N. THAKUR.

R/o D 200, GROUND FLOOR DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Shukla, Advocates.

Versus

1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Through Station House Officer Police Station Mehrauli South East District, Delhi ......Respondent No. 1

2. THAKUR BALWAN SINGH S/o Jalla Singh R/o D- 200, First Floor Defence Colony, New Delhi ......Respondent No. 2 Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State.

Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Senior Advocate; with Mr. Rahul Shukla; Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma; Adv. Mr. Vasu Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Ramandeep Singh; Adv. Mr. Nipun Bhushan, Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C‟), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 („BNSS‟), has been preferred by the Petitioner seeking the quashing of the Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 08.07.2019 filed in FIR No. 197/2012, registered at Police Station Mehrauli. 2. The Petitioner further challenges the Order dated 22.10.2019, whereby Notice was issued to the Petitioner, and the impugned Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Ld. JMFC-05, in C.C. No. 335/2019, wherein it was held that cognizance had already been taken by its Predecessor vide Order dated 22.10.2019 and listed the matter for scrutiny of documents/arguments on charge.

3. Briefly stated, the dispute pertains to property bearing No. D-200, Defence Colony, New Delhi, the Ground Floor of which was purchased by the Petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 16.02.2000, while the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 purchased the First Floor. A dispute arose regarding alleged encroachment of common areas by the Petitioner.

4. A Complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, to claim ownership of common areas and including allegations of forgery of Sale Deed by inserting 5 unnumbered pages, on which FIR No. 197/2012 was registered under Sections 466, 467, 468, 448, and 120B IPC, on 27.04.2012.

5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed the first Charge Sheet on 14.01.2019, wherein the Petitioner was placed in Column No. 12, as it was concluded that no wrongful loss/gain was caused, noting the dispute was civil in nature.

6. Respondent No. 2/Complainant filed objections to the first Charge Sheet. Subsequently, without any Order from the Court directing further investigation, the Police filed a Supplementary Charge Sheet on 08.07.2019, wherein the IO moved the Petitioner from Column No. 12 to Column No. 11. On 22.10.2019, the Ld. Trial Court observed “Issue notice to the accused Vijay Thakur for NDOH”.

7. The Petitioner raised objections regarding the validity of the Supplementary Charge Sheet. By the impugned Order dated 25.04.2025 the Ld. Trial Court rejected the Petitioner‟s contentions, holding that cognizance had already been taken vide the Order dated 22.10.2019 and listed the matter for arguments on charge.

8. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned Orders and proceedings on the grounds that the Supplementary Charge Sheet was filed without seeking prior leave of the Magistrate. The concerned ACP admitted before the Trial Court on 28.01.2025 that the Supplementary Charge Sheet was based on a “re-appreciation of FSL report” that was available at the time of the first Charge Sheet. Reliance has been placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762, to assert that while the police have a right to further investigation, seeking leave of the court is a necessary implication of law to prevent abuse.

9. Reliance has also been placed on Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State (2024), to submit that “further investigation” requires fresh evidence; not merely a change of opinion on existing evidence.

10. The Petitioner further asserts the dispute is purely