Ms. Riti Sabharwal vs. State (The Nct Of Delhi) And Anr

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’], the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0555/2024 dated 20.12.2024, registered at Police Station Saket South District, Delhi under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’], along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they pertain to her. The petitioner also seeks protection from coercive action during the pendency of the present petition.

Briefly stated, respondent no. 2, SelfX India Private Limited, carries on business under the name “Fashinza”. On 20.09.2021, respondent no. 2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding [MoU] with Kalamkari Lifestyle Tech This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:29:25 Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘Kalamkari’] for the manufacture and supply of garments. In connection with the aforesaid commercial arrangement, Kalamkari placed two purchase orders aggregating to approximately Rs. 89.20 lakh and paid an advance amount of Rs. 21 lakh.

As per the allegations in the impugned FIR, Mr. Mayank Sabharwal, the petitioner’s husband, recommended Modern Concepts Inc. for undertaking the manufacturing work. Respondent no. 2 accordingly engaged Modern Concepts Inc., which is a sole proprietorship of the petitioner, and paid approximately Rs. 80.59 lakh to it towards the manufacturing work. Respondent no. 2 alleges that the manufactured goods were thereafter supplied to Kalamkari and that it raised invoices upon Kalamkari aggregating to approximately Rs. 89.26 lakh and that apart from the advance payment of Rs. 21 lakh, an amount exceeding Rs. 68 lakh remained unpaid.

Respondent no. 2 further alleges that, upon making inquiries regarding the outstanding payment, it learnt that Modern Concepts Inc. was the sole proprietorship of the petitioner, who is the wife of Mr. Mayank Sabharwal, and that both of them were associated with Kalamkari. On the basis of their relationship and the manner in which the transaction was structured, respondent no. 2 alleges that the petitioner and her husband acted pursuant to a common design to cheat it. The said complaint led to the registration of the aforementioned FIR.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the dispute is contractual and commercial in nature and has been given a criminal colour. Reliance was placed on the arbitration clause contained in the concerned MoU governing the transaction as further demonstrating its commercial character.

It was further submitted that Modern Concepts Inc. had been in existence This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:29:25 since 2017, much before the transaction in question. Consequently, the petitioner’s proprietorship of the said concern and her relationship with Mr. Mayank Sabharwal could not, by themselves, establish the alleged conspiracy or any dishonest intention on her part.

Learned counsel contended that the alleged onward supply of goods to Kalamkari was unsupported by any contemporaneous e-way bills, lorry particulars or delivery records. The invoices relied upon by respondent no. 2 were stated to have surfaced for the first time with the legal notice issued in 2024, after a substantial lapse of time, and were characterised as subsequently created documents relied upon to support the criminal complaint.

It was also contended that respondent no. 2’s assertion that it learnt of the petitioner’s ownership only later was contradicted by its direct transfer of funds to Modern Concepts Inc. and by its having obtained the petitioner’s Aadhaar card, GST registration and other business particulars for statutory compliance. On this basis, learned counsel submitted that there was no concealment of the petitioner’s identity or ownership and that the contrary allegation in the impugned FIR was misleading. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s role was limited, as the affairs of Kalamkari were being managed by her husband.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had complied with the notice, joined the enquiry and furnished her statement and therefore, the interim protection sought should be granted to her.

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and has perused the material placed on record.

The juri iction invoked by the petitioner is extraordinary and is not intended to facilitate a mini-trial. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose a cognizable offence and whether continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:29:25 process of law or not.

In Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2021) 16 SCC 142, the Supreme Court held that, while exercising juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as CrPC], the Court is required to examine the complaint, FIR or charge-sheet on the basis of the allegations made therein and is not required to undertake a critical examination of their correctness. It was further held that the availability of a civil remedy or the existence of arbitral proceedings does not, by itself, justify quashing criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose an offence, and that documents relied upon to establish the accused’s defence are ordinarily matters for investigation or trial. The said principle applies with equal force to the corresponding juri iction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Tested on the aforesaid standard, the impugned FIR does not allege a mere failure to make payment under a contract. It alleges that Modern Concepts Inc., the petitioner’s sole proprietorship, received substantial amounts from respondent no. 2 for the manufacturing work, that the petitioner and her husband were associated with the entity which was to receive the goods and that the transaction was structured and acted upon pursuant to a common design, after which substantial consideration allegedly remained unpaid. These allegations, whether ultimately proved or not, attribute a specific role to the petitioner and cannot, at this stage, be said to be wholly bereft of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

Respondent no. 2’s prior knowledge of the petitioner’s proprietorship and the existence of Modern Concepts Inc. since 2017 do not, at this stage, negate the allegation of a common design or dishonest intention, particularly when concealment of ownership is not the sole basis of the FIR. The petitioner’s plea This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:29:25 of a limited role and that Kalamkari was managed by her husband requires factual examination.

The absence of e-way bills, lorry particulars and delivery records, and the allegation that the invoices were subsequently created, raise disputed questions of fact and evidence which cannot be determined in proceedings for quashing of an FIR.

The commercial nature of the transaction and the existence of an arbitration clause do not bar criminal proceedings where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case requiring investigation. Accordingly, no ground is made out to quash the concerned FIR.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and thereby, disposed of.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

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

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer [SHO] and learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/ys/PG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 12:29:25