Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State of NCT of Delhi

12 Aug 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6753

The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges for sexual assault despite prosecutrix's refusal of internal medical examination, discharging the accused only from the charge under Section 328 IPC for lack of prima facie evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant framing of charge sexual assault Section 164 Cr.P.C. Section 164A Cr.P.C.

Parasram v. State NCT of Delhi

12 Aug 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6747

Bail was denied to an accused charged with kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of minors due to the gravity of offences, consistent victim statements, and accused’s absconsion.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail kidnapping aggravated penetrative sexual assault minor victims

MS. XXXXXXXX v. State NCT of Delhi

12 Aug 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6751

The Delhi High Court set aside the discharge of accused in a rape and dowry case due to pending supplementary chargesheet and remanded for fresh consideration after all material is filed.

criminal other Significant discharge of accused supplementary chargesheet Section 376 IPC Dowry Prohibition Act

The State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Suraj

12 Aug 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6749

The High Court set aside the discharge of accused in a sexual offence case against a minor, holding that charges must be framed if material raises strong suspicion, especially considering the victim's age and trauma.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant framing of charge sexual offences against minors Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section 164 CrPC statement

Paras Nath Jha v. Harjeet Singh

12 Aug 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6755

The High Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's application to recall the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., holding that the power to recall witnesses must be exercised cautiously and the petitioner had ample opportunity to cross-examine earlier.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 311 CrPC Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act recall of witness cross-examination

Dinesh Gupta v. HT Media Limited & Anr.

12 Aug 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6744
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld summoning orders against a director under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that specific averments and documentary evidence suffice to proceed at the summoning stage without quashing the complaint.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 141 director liability

Amit Mittal v. Krishiv Poly Products LLP

12 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6842

The court held that a defendant who conceded limitation cannot have the plaint rejected on that ground, but may still raise limitation at final arguments despite defence being struck off.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Section 151 CPC limitation recall of order

Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd v. Ranjit Singh and Co. LLP

12 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6841

The Court examined whether a fresh claim is maintainable before the Arbitral Tribunal after an arbitral award was set aside for lack of evidence and arbitrariness, issuing notice and deferring proceedings pending further hearing.

arbitration other Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Annulment of award

Dilip Rawal v. M/S Mothers Pride Education Personna Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

12 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6840

The Delhi High Court restored a commercial suit dismissed for non-prosecution upon the plaintiff's assurance of future compliance and imposed costs for prior inaction.

civil appeal_allowed non-prosecution dismissal of suit restoration of suit Order IX Rule 4 CPC

M/S EMINENT INFRADEVELOPERS PVT LTD ANR v. BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA AND ANR

12 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6839

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order setting aside ex-parte decrees and allowing defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, emphasizing liberal exercise of discretion and fair trial principles.

civil appeal_dismissed ex-parte order Order IX Rule 7 CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC setting aside ex-parte decree

Anil Kumar v. Swati & Ors.

12 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6838

The Delhi High Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider the substitution application in a succession certificate petition after giving due hearing, especially considering the status of minor petitioners.

civil other succession certificate Section 372 Indian Succession Act Order XXII Rule 2 and 3 CPC natural justice

Jasvinder Singh Sethi & Anr. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

12 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6787

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act following an amicable settlement, affirming the court's power to end criminal proceedings where continuation would be unjust.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 135 Electricity Act amicable settlement Section 528 BNSS

Rohit Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6786

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, emphasizing the court's power under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process and serve the interest of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 BNSS abuse of process

Sasan Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

12 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6784

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354(D), 341, and 509 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power under Section 528 BNSS 2023 to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 amicable settlement criminal proceedings

Mayank Bansal @ Jonty v. State G.N.C.T of Delhi

12 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6788

The Delhi High Court quashed a motor accident FIR and all proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power under Article 226 and Section 528 BNS to end criminal cases where continuation would be unjust.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Article 226 Constitution Section 528 BNS

Pranav Basoya v. State of Delhi & Ors.

12 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6762

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and related criminal proceedings under Sections 509, 323, and 506 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principle that continuation of proceedings would be unfair and an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita abuse of process of law

Savita v. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE

12 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6813

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the MACT's refusal to release the balance compensation amount without requisite documents, directing the petitioner to file proper evidence before the Tribunal for consideration.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation award release of awarded amount

UEI GLOBAL EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED v. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ORS.

12 Aug 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:6810

The Delhi High Court directed restoration of electricity and terrace access to the petitioner subject to deposit of disputed license fees, leaving contractual disputes to arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant electricity supply restoration license agreement access to premises deposit of disputed amount

Satender v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Aug 2025 · Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:6760

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of offences including rape and cruelty, holding that disputed factual issues and the nature of consent require trial determination, and that mere allegations of false promise to marry do not automatically negate consent under Section 376 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Section 376 IPC false promise to marry consent

Deneth Piumakshi Wedarachchige v. State (NCT of Delhi)

12 Aug 2025 · Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:6758
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed charges against the petitioner for using a photocopy of a valid Indian visa in her passport, holding that such use does not constitute forgery or cheating under the IPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Forgery Cheating Indian Penal Code Passport tampering