IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Notice of Motion
2. Urgent Application
3. Memo of parties
4. List of dates & events
5. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing of FIR No.231/2015
under Sections 354(D)/506/509 IPC
read with Sections 66C and 67 of
Information Technology Act, 2000
along with affidavit in support
6. ANNEXURE P-1

Copy of FIR No.231/2015 dated

07.02.2015, lodged at P.S. Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi along with true
typed copy
7. ANNEXURE P-2

Copy of charge sheet filed under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with true
typed copy
8. ANNEXURE P-3

Copy of MOU between Petitioner and

 Respondent No.2
9. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for stay of Trial Court
proceedings along with affidavit in
support
10. Vakalatnama
11. Court fee

THROUGH

YASHOVARDHAN OZA
SHARIQ NISAR
MAYANK AGARWAL
ATULYA ANAND
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
C-66, SECOND FLOOR,
NIZAMUDDIN EAST
NEW DELHI-110013
Mob.:91-9893200061
PLACE : NEW DELHI
DATED : ___/10/2019
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION

To,

Standing Counsel (Criminal)

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi.
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi.

Sir,

The above noticed petition is being filed which is

most likely to be listed before the Hon'ble Court on

…/10/2019. Kindly be present on the said date of

hearing.

THROUGH

YASHOVARDHAN OZA
SHARIQ NISAR
MAYANK AGARWAL
ATULYA ANAND
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
C-66, SECOND FLOOR,
NIZAMUDDIN EAST
NEW DELHI-110013
Mob.:91-9893200061
PLACE : NEW DELHI
DATED : ___/10/2019

Encl.:- Copy of petition along with Annexures and

application
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

URGENT APPLICATION

To,

The Deputy Registrar,

Delhi High Court
New Delhi.

Sir,

Kindly treat the above noted petition as an urgent

one. The ground of urgency are that the petitioner is
badly suffering in the hands of the Respondents for
which the immediate indulgence of this Hon'ble
Court is necessary to quash the FIR registered by
the respondent as will as the proceedings
emanating out of the said FIR.

THROUGH

YASHOVARDHAN OZA
SHARIQ NISAR
MAYANK AGARWAL
ATULYA ANAND
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
C-66, SECOND FLOOR,
NIZAMUDDIN EAST
NEW DELHI-110013
Mob.:91-9893200061
PLACE : NEW DELHI
DATED : ___/10/2019
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

FIR NO.231/2015
U/S 354(D), 506, 509 IPC AND
SECTION 66(C) AND 67 OF IT ACT, 2000
P.S. MALVIYA NAGAR

MEMO OF PARTIES

SUBHAM KUMAR
S/O SH. GULSHAN KUMAR
OCCUPATION : EMBROIDERY WORKER
R/O GURUDWARA GALI, TARN-TARAN,
DISTRICT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB
PRESENTLY AT MUMBAI PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI

THROUGH POLICE COMMISSIONER,
POLICE HEAD QUARTER,
NEW DELHI-110001.

2. PALLAVI SIDANA
D/O ASHOK SIDANA
R/O 80/37B, MALVIYA NAGAR
NEW DELHI. RESPONDENTS

THROUGH

YASHOVARDHAN OZA
SHARIQ NISAR
MAYANK AGARWAL
ATULYA ANAND
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
C-66, SECOND FLOOR,
NIZAMUDDIN EAST
PLACE : NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110013
DATED : ___/10/2019 Mob.:91-9893200061
 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATES EVENTS
06.02.2015 Respondent No.2 received call from the

Petitioner at 10.00 pm.

07.02.2015 FIR bearing No.231/2015 got registered

by Respondent No.2 under Section 506

IPC and 66 IT Act.

07.05.2015 Copy of charge sheet filed by Police before

Ms. Niti Phutela, Ld. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

___.10.2019 The entire dispute which led to the

registration of the FIR as well as the

proceeding’s emanating from the said FIR

has been amicably settled with between

the parties.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………./2019

IN THE MATTER OF :-

SUBHAM KUMAR
S/O SH. GULSHAN KUMAR
OCCUPATION : EMBROIDERY WORKER
R/O GURUDWARA GALI, TARN-TARAN,
DISTRICT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB
PRESENTLY AT MUMBAI PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI,

THROUGH POLICE COMMISSIONER,
POLICE HEAD QUARTER,
NEW DELHI-110001.

2. PALLAVI SIDANA,
D/O ASHOK SIDANA ,
R/O 80/37B, MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI. RESPONDENTS

FIR NO.231/2015
U/S 354(D), 506, 509 IPC AND
SECTION 66(C) AND 67 OF IT ACT, 2000
P.S. MALVIYA NAGAR

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHING
THE CHARGES IN F.I.R. NO.231/2015, P.S.
MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI AND THE
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING FROM THE
SAID F.I.R. REGISTERED UNDER SECTION
506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
AND SECTION 66 OF THE INFORMATION
AND TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1. That the petitioner is a law abiding adult citizen of

India and is presently residing at House No.337,

Yogdara Society, Kirti Nagar, PS: Amroli, Surat city,

Gujarat. The Petitioner is the Accused in FIR

No.231 of 2015 registered with the Malviya Nagar

Police Station New Delhi.

2. That the Respondent No.1 is the State of NCT of

Delhi which is responsible for maintaining law and

order in the State of NCT of Delhi. Respondent No.2

is the original Complainant in the FIR under

challenge dated 07.02.2015 filed against the

Petitioner.

3. That by way of present petition, the Petitioner is

seeking quashing of FIR No.231 of 2015 registered

at Malviya Nagar Police Station New Delhi u/s

354(D), 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

and Section 66(c) and 67 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000.

ISSUE INVOLVED

4. The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble High

Court by way of Writ Petition in its writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in its

 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge-

sheet filed in FIR No.231 of 2015 registered by

Malviya Nagar Police Station, New Delhi.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The Respondent No.1 had registered an FIR bearing

No.231 of 2015 dated 07.02.2015 at the instance of

Respondent No.2 – Ms. Pallavi Sidana at Malviya

Nagar Police Station, New Delhi. It is pertinent here

to note that the Petitioner in the present matter is

the cousin brother of Respondent No.2/

Complainant. Copy of FIR No.231/2015 dated

07.02.2015 registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, New

Delhi is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P-1.

6. The Respondent No.2/Complainant in the above

said FIR alleges that:-

a. On 06.02.2015, she received a call at around

10.00 PM from an unknown No.9724153266 which

belongs to the Petitioner.

b. The Petitioner threatened her to unblock his

mobile number from WhatsApp, failing which she

will have to face dire consequences.

 c. Subsequently she received many calls from

random mobile numbers on 06.02.2015 after 10.00

PM.

d. She figured out from one of the callers that her

mobile number was uploaded on a social media

website, namely Facebook, by a fake ID by the name

“Pallavi Sidana”.

e. On 06.02.2015, the Petitioner made a fake

Facebook account in her name wherein he uploaded

her display picture from her WhatsApp mobile

number.

f. The aforesaid act was done by Petitioner with

an intention to harm her.

7. That Respondent No.1/State which is the

investigating agency, filed the charge-sheet/final

report form under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The

Respondent No.1 charged the Petitioner for having

committed offences under Sections 354(D), 506 and

509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section

66(C) and Section 67 of the Information Technology

Act, 2000. Copy of charge sheet filed in FIR

No.231/2015 dated 07.05.2015 registered at P.S.

 Malviya Nagar, New Delhi is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P-2.

8. That Petitioner and Respondent No.2/ Complainant

are maternal cousins and that the entire dispute

between the parties is civil in nature. It is pertinent

here to note that the entire dispute which led to the

registration of the FIR as well as the proceeding’s

emanating from the said FIR was a domestic family

dispute and that the same has now been amicably

settled with, between the parties, i.e., the Petitioner

and Respondent No.2/Complainant. It has been

agreed that both parties are left with no grievances

against each other and that they will now be leading

their lives respectfully and without any intervention

from any corner. It is also agreed that Respondent

No.2/Complainant shall withdraw her complaint

based on which the FIR in question got registered

against the Petitioner. The said settlement has

taken place by way of memorandum/settlement

deed dated which has been entered into

between the parties. Copy of the memorandum/

settlement dated is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P-3.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the Petitioner has

approached this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the

FIR registered against them on following:

GROUNDS

a. BECAUSE the complaint does not disclose any

offense.

b. BECAUSE the FIR registered against the

present Petitioner does not prima facie constitute

any offence.

c. BECAUSE in the said FIR as well as the charge

sheet, the Petitioner has been charged with

Section(s) 354(D), 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Sections 66(C) and 67 of the

Information Technology Act, 2000, however, the

allegations in the complaint do not constitute a

cognizable offence.

d. BECAUSE there is no material document or

evidence present on record which substantiates the

claim of the Respondent No.2/Complainant that the

Petitioner was involved in the alleged incident that

took place. It is pertinent here to note that even the

FSL reports are mute on the point that it was the

 Petitioner who made the fake social media account

of the Respondent No.2/Complainant.

e. BECAUSE the Petitioner has been alleged to

have committed offence under Section 354(D) of the

Indian Penal Code. Section 354(D) IPC is being

reproduced herein below for kind perusal of this

Hon'ble Court:-

“(1) Any man who –

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or

attempts to contact such woman to foster

personal interaction repeatedly despite a

clear indication of disinterest by such

woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the

internet, email or any other form of

electronic communication, commits the

offence of stalking;

Provided that such conduct shall not

amount to stalking if the man who

pursued it proves that-

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of

preventing or detecting crime and the man

accused of stalking had been entrusted

 with the responsibility of prevention and

detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to

comply with any condition or requirement

imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such

conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking

shall be punished on first conviction with

imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to three years,

and shall also be liable to fine; and be

punished on a second or subsequent

conviction, with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend

to five years, and shall also be liable to

fine.”

f. BECAUSE for an offence under section 354(D)

IPC, it is necessary that the intent of the accused

should be to monitor the use by the woman through

the way of Emails, internet or in any other

electronic form. It is submitted that nothing done by

the Petitioner amounts to Stalking.

g. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in the matter of

Mohit Arora vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in

2016 SCC Online DEL 1408 held as under:-

“7. The inherent powers of the High Court

ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse

of process of law and to secure the ends

of justice. The Respondent No.2 agreed to

the quashing of the FIR in question and

has stated that the matter has been

settled out of his own free will. As the

matter has been settled and compromised

amicably, so, there would be an

extraordinary delay in the process of law

if the legal proceedings between the

parties are carried on. So, this Court is of

the considered opinion that this is a fit

case to invoke the jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the

abuse of process of law and to secure the

ends of justice.”

“10. It is a well settled law that where the High

Court is convinced that the offences are

entirely personal in nature and therefore

do not affect public peace or tranquility

and where it feels that quashing of such

proceedings on account of compromise

would bring about peace and would

secure ends of justice, it should not

hesitate to quash them. In such cases,

pursuing prosecution would be waste of

time and energy. Non-compoundable

offences are basically an obstruction in

entering into compromise. In certain cases,

the main offence is compoundable but the

connected offences are not. In the case

of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of

Haryana and Another, 2003 (4) SCC

675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that

even though the provisions of Section

320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such

offences which are not compoundable, it

did not limit or affect the powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble

Apex Court laid down that if for the

purpose of securing the ends of justice,

quashing of FIR becomes

necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not

be a bar to the exercise of power of

 quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble

Apex Court justified the exercise of powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings to secure the ends of justice

in view of the special facts and

circumstances of the case, even where the

offences were non- compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is

of the view that notwithstanding the fact

the offences under Sections 354/354(D)/

385 IPC are non-compoundable offences,

there should be no impediment in

quashing the FIR under these sections, if

the Court is otherwise satisfied that the

facts and circumstances of the case so

warrant.”

“11. In the facts and circumstances of this case

and in view of statement made by the

respondent No.2, the FIR in question

warrants to be put to an end and

proceedings emanating thereupon need to

be quashed.”

h. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported

 in (2012) 10 SCC 303 the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has recognized the need of amicable resolution of

disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing

as under:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must

consider whether it would be unfair or

contrary to the interest of justice to

continue with the criminal proceedings or

continuation of criminal proceedings

would tantamount to abuse of process of

law despite settlement and compromise

between the victim and the wrongdoer

and whether to secure the ends of justice,

it is appropriate that criminal case is put

to an end and if the answer to the above

question(s) is in the affirmative, the High

Court shall be well within its jurisdiction

to quash the criminal proceedings."

i. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P)

Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd., reported in (2000) 3

SCC 269 held as under:-

“…Exercise of jurisdiction under the

inherent power as envisaged in Section

482 of the Code to have the complaint or

the charge-sheet quashed is an exception

rather than a rule and the case for

quashing at the initial stage must have to

be treated as rarest of rare so as not to

scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment

of first information report the ball is set to

roll and thenceforth the law takes its own

course and the investigation ensues in

accordance with the provisions of law. The

jurisdiction as such is rather limited and

restricted and its undue expansion is

neither practicable nor warranted. In the

event, however, the court on a perusal of

the complaint comes to a conclusion that

the allegations levelled in the complaint or

charge-sheet on the face of it does not

constitute or disclose any offence as

alleged, there ought not to be any

hesitation to rise up to the expectation of

the people and deal with the situation as

is required under the law. Frustrated

litigants ought not to be indulged to give

vent to their vindictiveness through a legal

process and such an investigation ought

not to be allowed to be continued since the

same is opposed to the concept of justice,

which is paramount.”

“Needless to record however and it being

a settled principle of law that to exercise

powers under Section 482 of the Code, the

complaint in its entirety shall have to be

examined on the basis of the allegation

made in the complaint and the High Court

at that stage has no authority or

jurisdiction to go into the matter or

examine its correctness. Whatever

appears on the face of the complaint shall

be taken into consideration without any

critical examination of the same. But the

offence ought to appear ex facie on the

complaint.”

“Be it noted that in the matter of exercise

of the High Court’s inherent power, the

only requirement is to see whether

continuance of the proceeding would be a

total abuse of the process of court. The

Criminal Procedure Code contains a

 detailed procedure for investigation,

charge and trial, and in the event, the

High Court is desirous of putting a stop to

the known procedure of law, the High

Court must use a proper circumspection

and as noticed above, very great care and

caution to quash the complaint in exercise

of its inherent jurisdiction.”

j. BECAUSE it is an established position in law

that Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. and pass such orders as

may be necessary, to prevent abuse of the process

of Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. In

State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992

Supp. (1) SCC 335 (hereinafter referred to as

“Bhajan Lal)”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

one of the categories of cases fit for the exercise of

powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is:

“Where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even

if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima-

facie constitute any offence or make out a

 case against the accused. (emphasis

supplied)”

k. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India

Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 held as under:-

"12. The principles relating to exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure to 11 (2014) 2 SCC

1 12 (2006) 6 SCC 736 quash complaints

and criminal proceedings have been

stated and reiterated by this Court in

several decisions. To mention a few—

Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1

SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of

Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan

Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

[(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059],

Central Bureau of Investigation vs.

Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5

SCC 591: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of

Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8

SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh

 Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC

259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl

Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological

E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri)

615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs.

State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000

SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan vs. Vijay

Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)

19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC

122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles,

relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the

allegations made in the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, do not prima

facie constitute any offence or make out

the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be

examined as a whole, but without

examining the merits of the allegations.

Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous

analysis of the material nor an

assessment of the reliability or

 genuineness of the allegations in the

complaint, is warranted while examining

prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it

is a clear abuse of the process of the court,

as when the criminal proceeding is found

to have been initiated with mala

fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to

cause harm, or where the allegations are

absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be

used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate

prosecution. The power should be used

sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim

reproduce the legal ingredients of the

offence alleged. If the necessary factual

foundation is laid in the complaint, merely

on the ground that a few ingredients have

not been stated in detail, the proceedings

should not be quashed. Quashing of the

complaint is warranted only where the

complaint is so bereft of even the basic

 facts which are absolutely necessary for

making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a)

purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a

criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as

also a criminal offence. A commercial

transaction or a contractual dispute, apart

from furnishing a cause of action for

seeking remedy in civil law, may also

involve a criminal offence. As the nature

and scope of a civil proceeding are

different from a criminal proceeding, the

mere fact that the complaint relates to a

commercial transaction or breach of

contract, for which a civil remedy is

available or has been availed, is not by

itself a ground to quash the criminal

proceedings. The test is whether the

allegations in the complaint disclose a

criminal offence or not."

l. BECAUSE the FIR falls under the aforesaid

category laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court which

warrants quashing of FIR/complaint by invoking

the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482,

 Cr.P.C. Therefore the said FIR No.231/2015 as well

as the proceedings emanating from the said FIR,

registered with the Malviya Nagar Police Station,

New Delhi should be quashed, in the interest of

justice.

m. BECAUSE it is clear from the facts and

circumstances of the case the episode which took

place was a family dispute and that the same has

been settled within the family itself, therefore, it is

imperative in the interest of justice that the FIR

No.231/2015 registered at Malviya Nagar Police

Station be quashed.

n. BECAUSE if the criminal proceedings against

the Petitioner are allowed to continue, it will cause

them severe prejudice.

10. In light of the facts and circumstances of this case,

it is clear that no purpose would be served by

having the investigation continue; In Madhavrao

Jiwaji Rao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre, reported in AIR 1988 SC

709, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“…it is also for the court to take into

consideration any special features which

 appear in a particular case to consider

whether it is expedient and in the interest

of justice to permit a prosecution to

continue. This is so on the basis that the

court cannot be utilized for any oblique

purpose and where in the opinion of the

court chances of an ultimate conviction is

bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is

likely to be served by allowing a criminal

prosecution to continue, the court may

while taking into consideration the special

facts of a case also quash the proceeding

even though it may be at a preliminary

stage.”

11. That the action of respondent in raising the penal

demand as well as lodging the FIR amounts to

double jeopardy. The FIR lodging against the

petitioner is liable to be quashed. The petitioner

should not suffer for no offence.

12. That the Petitioner craves leave to add, alter and/or

delete the averments in the Petition, if any, as and

when necessary with the kind permission of this

Hon’ble Court.
13. That Petitioner resides at the address given in the

cause title of Petition and the FIR under challenge,

has been registered Malviya Nagar Police Station,

New Delhi. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has

jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the present

petition.

14. That the Petitioner submits that he has no

alternative remedy but to approach this Hon’ble

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The reliefs prayed for in the present petition if

granted shall be adequate remedy for the grievances

of the Petitioner.

15. That the Petitioner submits that there has been no

delay or laches in filing the present petition.

16. That the Petitioner states that he has not filed any

other or similar Petition, Application, Appeal or

Revision either before this Hon’ble Court or before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or in any other

Court pertaining to the subject matter, seeking

similar reliefs as prayed in the present petition.

 PRAYER

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to:-

i) quash the FIR bearing No.231/2015

registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi

under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Section 66 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 and also quash the Trial

Court proceedings and other proceedings

emanating out of the above said FIR; and/or

ii) pass any other or further order in favour

of Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case in the interest of

justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE

PETITIONER AS DULY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

THROUGH

YASHOVARDHAN OZA
 SHARIQ NISAR
MAYANK AGARWAL
ATULYA ANAND
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
C-66, SECOND FLOOR,
NIZAMUDDIN EAST
PLACE : NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110013
DATED : 10/10/2019 Mob.:91-9893200061
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Subham Kumar S/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar, aged 22

years R/o Gurudwara Gali, Tarn-Taran, District

Amritsar, Punjab, presently at New Delhi, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. That I am Petitioner in the above noted petition and

am well conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case and as such am

competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. has been drafted by my Counsel under my

instructions, the contents of the same have been

read over to me in vernacular language. The

contents of the same are true and correct to my

knowledge and the same may kindly be read as a

 part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not

being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have not filed any other similar Petition either

before this Hon'ble Court or before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

4. That the annexures annexed with the accompanying

Petition are the true copies of their respective

originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Mumbai on this 10 th day of October,

2019 that the contents of my above affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No

part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. NO………./2019

IN

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………./2019

IN THE MATTER OF :-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. FOR

STAYING THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the Applicant/Petitioner has filed the

accompanying petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

for quashing of FIR No.231/2015, P.S. Malviya

Nagar, Delhi which is pending adjudication before

the Ld. M.M., Saket Courts, New Delhi.

2. That the police have already filed the charge sheet

before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket

Courts, New Delhi and the case is now fixed for

hearing on 11.10.2019.
3. That the Applicant/Petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the above said FIR and no offence is

constituted under Sections 354D, 506 and 509 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66 (c) &

67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. That the Applicant/Petitioner is facing a lot of

harassment in trial even after the filing of the

challan.

5. That the petition of the Applicant/Petitioner is most

likely to be allowed as in the similar facts the

Hon'ble High Court has already allowed several

Petitions.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is therefore most

respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may

kindly be pleased to:

a. stay the proceedings in FIR bearing

No.231/2015, P.S. Malviya Nagar, Delhi

pending in the Court of Ms. Niti Phutela,

Ld. M.M., Saket Courts, New Delhi, till

the pendency of the present petition; and

b. pass any other or further order which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case in the interest of justice.

THROUGH

YASHOVARDHAN OZA
SHARIQ NISAR
MAYANK AGARWAL
ATULYA ANAND
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
C-66, SECOND FLOOR,
NIZAMUDDIN EAST
PLACE : NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110013
DATED : 10/10/2019 Mob.:91-9893200061
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

CRL. MISC. NO………./2019

IN

CRL. MISC. (M) NO………/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBHAM KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Subham Kumar S/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar, aged 22

years R/o Gurudwara Gali, Tarn-Taran, District

Amritsar, Punjab, presently at New Delhi, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. That I am Petitioner in the above petition and am

well conversant with the facts and circumstances of

the case as such am competent to swear this

affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Application under Section

482 Cr.P.C has been drafted by my counsel under

my instructions, the contents of the same have been

read over to me in vernacular language. The

contents of the same are true and correct to my

knowledge and the same may kindly be read as a

part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not

being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Amritsar on this 10th day of October

2019 that the contents of my above affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No

part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT