Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash Cross-FIR Against Transgender Individual, Holds Prima Facie Case Exists for Trial.

Update / Judgement Date

14 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

4 min read

Criminal LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash Cross-FIR Against Transgender Individual, Holds Prima Facie Case Exists for Trial.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of a cross FIR and summoning order against a transgender individual and their partner. The Court held that at the pre-trial stage, contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements are not grounds for quashing when a prima facie case exists. It reaffirmed that the power to quash under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when the FIR or charge sheet fails to disclose any offence. Procedural irregularities and allegations of malafide are issues for trial, not for adjudication at the summoning stage.


Background:
  1. Petitioners: Atharva Chaudhary (transgender person) and partner.
  2. Cross FIR No. 389/2023 dated 22.08.2023 registered at P.S. Maidan Garhi under Sections 323, 341, 506, 354-B, IPC.
  3. Petitioners were earlier complainants in FIR No. 388/2023, alleging assault and transphobic abuse by respondents 2–4.
  4. Charge sheet filed in both FIRs; petitioners were summoned in the cross-case by MM Saket on 20.06.2024.
  5. Petitioners filed CRL.M.C. 4852/2025 seeking quashing of the cross FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order.


Petitioners’ Contentions:
  1. FIR is retaliatory and a "counter-blast" to their earlier complaint (FIR No. 388/2023).
  2. Gross contradictions in Respondent No. 2’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC:
  3. Alleged change in location of incident (outside vs. inside flat).
  4. Absence of medical examination or injury records despite allegations of physical assault.
  5. Claims of torn clothes not substantiated; no garments produced during investigation.
  6. Alleged existence of video evidence contradicted by subsequent statement denying the same.
  7. Alleged procedural irregularities and lack of evidence should have precluded the summoning order.
  8. Invoked Category 7 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue the FIR was malicious and instituted with an ulterior motive.
  9. No prima facie case made out; summoning order passed without application of mind.


Respondent State’s Submissions:
  1. Only a prima facie case is required at the stage of summoning; not necessary to conclusively prove guilt.
  2. Contradictions or inconsistencies are part of trial and cannot be grounds for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
  3. Charge sheet and Section 161 CrPC statements support allegations sufficient for issuing process.


Court’s Observations:
  1. Summoning requires only prima facie satisfaction of the existence of an offence; court not expected to weigh evidence at this stage.
  2. Contradictions and improvements in statements are trial matters.
  3. No cogent material to show that FIR No. 389/2023 falls under any of the categories laid out in Bhajan Lal, especially Category 7 (malicious prosecution).
  4. Court reiterated that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, only in cases where allegations are manifestly absurd or fail to disclose any offence.
  5. Noted that trial is at a nascent stage and petitioners have full opportunity to defend themselves during the proceedings.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Inherent powers of High Court.
  2. Section 323, 341, 506, 354-B IPC – Alleged offences in cross FIR.
  3. Section 18(d), Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Invoked in the original FIR against the respondents.
  4. Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Quashing of FIR in exceptional cases.
  5. Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of UP – Reaffirming limited scope of quashing.
  6. Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das – Prima facie standard for issuance of process.


Conclusion / Decision:

The Court held that a prima facie case existed against the petitioners based on the material in the charge sheet. Alleged contradictions and lack of corroboration are not determinative at the summoning stage. The Court declined to interfere under Section 482 CrPC, stating that the power cannot be exercised to short-circuit a legitimate trial.

Petition Dismissed.

All pending applications stood disposed of.


Case Details:

Case Title: Atharva Chaudhary & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Petition No.: CRL.M.C. 4852/2025