$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 149/2026 ARKA BHATTACHARYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Senior Advocate with Dr. Arka Pratim Chowdhury, Mr. Rupraj Banerjee, Ms. Puja Rajbhor and Mr. Satyam Sharma, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Spl. P.P.

SI Amit Chaudhary, Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 15.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 1389/2026 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 149/2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of proceeding arising out of FIR No.016133/2024 registered under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S.: e-Police Station (Nangloi Outer District). It is submitted that sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 („MCOCA‟) have also been invoked against the petitioner vide order dated 21.09.2024 after approval by the Competent Authority.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP appears for the State on advance copy;

accepts notice; and seeks time to file status report.

4. Let status report/reply be filed within 04 weeks; response/rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 03 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.

5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that on a plain reading of sections 2(1)(d), (e) and (f) of MCOCA, i.e., the definitions of „continuing unlawful activity‟, „organized crime‟ and „organized crime syndicate‟, it is clear that for an individual to be accused of offences under MCOCA, there have to be more than 01 chargesheets filed against the person within the preceding 10 years, which was not the case with the petitioner; and the learned trial court ought to have taken cognizance of that offence.

6. However, Mr. Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits, that in its decisions in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra,, (2023) 20 SCC 408, para 85 and Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka,², the Supreme Court has clearly held that the requirement that “more than one charge sheet is required to be filed” is applicable “in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person, who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate”.

(2022) 12 SCC 753, paras 29 and 30

7. The parties are directed to specifically address the issue arising from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar and Kavitha Lankesh.

8. In the meantime, let a copy of the chargesheet be placed on record alongwith the counter-affidavit.

9. Re-notify on 04^th May 2026.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JANUARY 15, 2026/ak