Delhi High Court
W.P.(CRL)/2173/2026 of MANOJ GULATI Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 24 July 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~112 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2173/2026 & CRL.M.A.21766/2026 MANOJ GULATI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Ajay Yadav, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC. SI Mohit.
$~112
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(CRL) 2173/2026 & CRL.M.A.21766/2026
MANOJ GULATI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Ajay
Yadav, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC.
SI Mohit.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 24.07.2026
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the following reliefs: “i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no.1 and its concerned police officials not to harass the petitioner, his family members, employees or representatives and not to issue unwarranted repeated notices or make visits at addresses unrelated to petitioner except strictly in accordance with law in relation to complaint DD No.60A pending at Police Station Badarpur and to proceed strictly in accordance with law without acting under influence of respondent no.2.
ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing that no coercive action including, detention and unwarranted visits or any other prejudicial action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of complaint DD No.60A except by following due process of law and after proper consideration of petitioner’s replies and documents.
iii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondent no.1 from misusing police machinery or criminal process with object of pressurising petitioner in respect of disputes arising out of commercial/business transactions already pending before competent statutory forums at the instance of the respondent no.2.
iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction protecting life and personal liberty of the petitioner and ensuring that no unnecessary interference is caused in petitioner’s lawful business activities and peaceful residence. v. Pass any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”
2. Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, learned Additional Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 – State, appears on advance notice, and submits that, as far as the proceedings in question are concerned, the petitioner may communicate a particular address and telephone number, at which the Investigating Officer [“IO”] may communicate with him.
3. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the address and telephone number of the petitioner will be given to the IO in the course of the day.
4. Mr. Ansari also submits that the IO will proceed strictly in accordance with law, as far as issuance of notices or requiring the petitioner for inquiry is concerned.
5. In view of the submissions of Mr. Ansari, no further relief is sought in the petition.
6. The petition, alongwith pending application, is therefore disposed of.
7. Needless to say, as notice has not been issued to respondent No. 2, the rights and contentions of all parties remain reserved in the underlying proceedings.
8. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits or veracity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 24, 2026 SS/MK/