CRL.M.C./7040/2026 of SIDDHARTH JAIN & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

% 22.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of FIR No. 299/2022, registered at Police Station Jagat Puri, District Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioners.

3. Briefly stated, petitioner No. 1 is the younger brother of respondent No. 2/complainant, while petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. The dispute concerns property bearing No. 16, Mausam Vihar, Delhi. According to the complaint, respondent No. 2 shifted to the United States of America with his family in May 2007, leaving certain belongings at the aforesaid property. Upon returning to India in October 2018, he allegedly found articles valued at approximately ₹25,00,000/- missing.

4. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners and their father had removed the aforesaid belongings and fabricated a Will dated 14.11.2014, purportedly executed by his mother in favour of his father. He further alleged unauthorised withdrawals from the bank account jointly held by him with his mother after her demise on 18.01.2015 and fraudulent receipt of the proceeds of his LIC policies. The complaint also contains an allegation concerning the transfer of certain ICICI Bonds through forged signatures. The latter transaction, however, is specifically attributed to other accused persons and not to the present petitioners.

5. Respondent No. 2 lodged a police complaint on 21.05.2019 and subsequently approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’). Vide order dated 27.04.2022, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, directed registration of an FIR, observing that police investigation was necessary to ascertain the alleged transactions and the role of the persons involved. The aforesaid FIR was accordingly registered on 03.05.2022. The petitioners seek its quashing principally on the ground that the allegations arise from a civil and intra- family property dispute. No chargesheet or final report had been filed as on the date of institution of the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the criminal proceedings arise out of a longstanding property dispute between members of the same family and have been instituted as a counterblast to the complaints and proceedings arising between them. It is contended that no specific act constituting forgery has been attributed to either petitioner. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the observations recorded therein concerning the conduct of respondent No. 2 towards his father.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations had been examined during the earlier police inquiry, wherein the dispute was found to be civil in nature. Referring to the status report dated 26.10.2020, learned counsel submits that the disputed transactions in the joint bank account were found to have been carried out by the account holder himself. That the record obtained from LIC also showed that the proceeds of the two policies had been credited to the joint account maintained in the names of respondent No. 2 and his mother, Smt. Ashok Jain. It is, therefore, urged that the material collected during the inquiry does not substantiate the allegations of misappropriation against the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel further submits that, despite the lapse of more than four years since registration of the FIR, no chargesheet has been filed and no incriminating material substantiating the allegations against the petitioners has emerged during the investigation. It is pointed out that the father of petitioner No. 1, who was also arrayed as an accused, passed away on 12.02.2026. It is contended that the continued pendency of the investigation, particularly when the complainant has allegedly failed to join the investigation, amounts to harassment of the petitioners and an abuse of the process of law.

9. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the investigation is still pending and that the delay is attributable to the non-cooperation of respondent No. 2, who resides in the United States of America. It is submitted that several notices have been issued to him to join the investigation. Learned APP accordingly seeks one month’s time to complete the investigation.

10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the continued failure of respondent No. 2 to join the investigation demonstrates his lack of interest in pursuing the allegations and cannot justify keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners indefinitely.

11. Heard the learned counsel(s) for the concerned parties and perused the material placed on record.

12. The FIR in the present case contains specific allegations against the petitioners concerning the removal of belongings, preparation and use of the disputed Will and receipt of the proceeds of the LIC policies. These allegations, when taken at their face value, disclose cognizable offences and cannot be said to be wholly vague or confined only to the deceased father of petitioner No. 1.

13. The status report dated 26.10.2020, relied upon by the petitioners, was submitted during the preliminary inquiry conducted before registration of the FIR. The learned Magistrate considered the said report and nevertheless found that the alleged transactions and the role of the persons involved required police investigation. The petitioners are, in effect, seeking acceptance of their defence and a conclusive determination of disputed facts on the basis of the said preliminary report. Such an exercise is impermissible while considering a petition for quashing of an FIR.

14. The existence of civil and testamentary proceedings between the parties does not warrant quashing when the allegations also disclose cognizable offences. Similarly, the delay in completing the investigation cannot, by itself, justify terminating the proceedings.

15. In view of the above, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out.

16. The petition is accordingly, dismissed and thereby, disposed of.

17. The Investigating Officer (IO) in this case shall make an endeavour to complete the investigation expeditiously, in accordance with law.

18. Nothing hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

19. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) for necessary information and compliance.

20. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/ys/PG