The Delhi High Court Bench Consisting of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, refused to quash an FIR (First Information Report) filed against the Petitioner accused of taking ₹25,00,000 and various luxury items, including watches, eyewear, and an Audi car, from the Respondent, she had been in a relationship with.

Justice Bansal, who heard the case, explained that the allegations in this FIR were different from a previous case that the Respondent had filed against the Petitioner. The Court emphasized that the purpose of an FIR is to investigate allegations, and simply filing an FIR doesn’t mean the accused is guilty.  Justice Bansal Krishna stated, “In case, the Investigating Officer finds that there are no merits in the allegations or that these allegations have already been examined in the earlier FIR and found to be baseless, there is nothing which prevents him from submitting the Final Report, in terms of his investigation."

The FIR was filed by her ex-partner(the Respondent) in 2022 and included accusations under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as theft (Section 379), criminal breach of trust (Section 406), cheating (Section 420), forgery (Sections 467 and 468), and using forged documents (Section 471).

The Respondent alleged that they met in 2015 while the Petitioner worked as an Assistant Manager at a bank. He claimed that she pretended to be a divorcee and single mother with a young child in order to start a relationship with him. He further alleged that she introduced her husband to him as her brother and another individual as her father. Eventually, the Petitioner moved in with him, and on February 15, 2022, they prepared an affidavit to formalize their marriage.

According to the Respondent, the Petitioner, along with other co-conspirators, stole three luxury watches worth more than ₹13,00,000, five pairs of branded eyeglasses valued at ₹1,50,000, and his Audi A6 car. He also alleged that she and her associates threatened to distribute his blank cheques to others if he did not comply with their demands.

The Petitioner, however, argued that the FIR was a retaliatory move by the Respondent in response to a rape complaint she had filed against him earlier. Her lawyer described the allegations in the FIR as “false, frivolous, and a means to harass her.” They further argued that this FIR contained the same claims as an earlier one, which had already been investigated and dismissed with a closure report.

Despite some overlap in the allegations, the Court noted that the second FIR included additional accusations, different dates, and distinct transactions. As a result, the Court ruled that “since the allegations were not identical,” the second FIR could not be quashed. The Court allowed the investigation to proceed and dismissed the petition.

Advocate for the Petitioner - Mr.Prakash Sinha.

Advocates for State- Mr.Rahul Tyagi, Mr.Sarthak Chaudhary.

Advocate for Respondent- Mr.Kshitij Mathur.