* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 11, 2026 % Pronounced on: March 10, 2026 + W.P.(CRL) 1514/2022, CRL.M.A. 13231/2022 RADHA RAMAN SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Kantawala, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Avsi Malil, Mr. A.M.

Nair and Mr. Ujwal Jain, Advs.

Versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Shubham Goyal and Mr.

Aniket Kumar Singh, Advs.

Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Mr. Gulshan Kumar, Ms. Vanshika Nagpal, Ms. Subhaga Gera and Ms. Ravina Yadav, Advs. for R-2 SI- Rohit, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Hereinafter as “Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks, quashing of FIR No.144/2019, dated 07.03.2019 under Sections 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter as “IPC registered with PS.:Uttam Nagar, Delhi and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Succinctly put, it is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1996, the petitioner and his brother purchased a property being WZ-A-42, Roop Nagar, Near Nawada Extension (Om Vihar Phase-V), New Delhi-110 0593 vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale and Will dated 19.03.1996, Hereinafter as “ownership documents duly executed in their favour and thereafter a residence was constructed thereon and the petitioner had been residing with his family therein.

3. Subsequently in the year 2016, as the respondent no.2 herein became aware of construction on the suit property, the respondent no.2 instituted a Suit bearing no.1742/2016 before learned Additional District Judge (West District), Dwarka Court, New Delhi, Hereinafter as “learned Trial Court seeking a decree of declaration, possession and mandatory injunction qua the suit property, claiming himself to be the owner thereof in view of a purported registered Sale Deed dated 09.11.1983.

4. Despite being duly served in the said pending suit, the respondent no.2, after a gap of almost three years, lodged a complaint dated 07.03.2019 against the petitioner and three other co-accused which resulted in registration of the present FIR under Sections 420/ 34 of the IPC. Even after lapse of sufficient time, no charge-sheet has been filed therein till date.

5. Mr. N.K. Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the FIR merely establish a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 as it primarily pertains to ownership/ identification of the suit property, for which the respondent no.2 has

3 Hereinafter as “suit property

already instituted a civil proceeding. Reliance is placed upon State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR 604. In any event, the FIR suffers from serious infirmity as co-accused Mr. Ramesh expired on 24.09.2002 and another co-accused Mr. Charan Dass also expired on 23.12.2003, well before lodging of the complaint or subsequently registration of the present FIR.

6. Lastly, relying upon Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714, Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., (2016) 9 SCC 1 learned counsel submitted that a belated and unexplained lodging of an FIR erodes the vital element of spontaneity, thereby increasing the likelihood of exaggeration and makes such an FIR a creature of an after- thought and such delay strikes at the root of the prosecution’s case that raises serious doubts qua the genuineness and credibility of the allegations set out in the FIR.

7. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned ASC for the State submitted that the respondent no.2 became aware of the illegal construction on his property in the year 2015 and since then, investigation qua verification of the property documents qua the suit property of both the parties hav