CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 06

th

November, 2025

Pronounced on: 05

th

January, 2026

+ CRL.M.C. 6474/2018, CRL.M.A. 50111/2018 (stay)

MANOJ MISHRA

S/o Late Ram Kishan Mishra,

R/o G-216, Gali No. 1, Teesra Pusta,

New Usmanpur, Delhi .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Parmesh Bali, Mr. Gagan Garg,

Mr. Shivam Srivastav, Mr. Keshav

Maheshwari and Mr. Abhishek

Nandan, Advs.

versus

1. STATE (GNCTD)

Through Its Standing Counsel (Crl.)

Lawyers Chambers

Delhi High Court

New Delhi .....Respondent No.1

2. SMT. SADHANA MEHROTA

W/o Late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra,

R/o E-11, Third Floor, Defence Colony,

New Delhi-110024. ….Respondent No.2

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

Mr. Yashpal Singh, Mr. Abhinandan

Gautam and Mr Himanshu Baliyan,

Advocates for R-2.

34

+ CRL.M.C. 2524/2019, CRL.M.A. 10033/2019 (stay) & 38208/2019

(delay)

SURESH KUMAR

S/o Sh. Jhuntharam

Resident of Mukandpura,

Khetri, Thathwari,

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 2 of 16

Jhunjhunun

Thathwari,

Rajasthan-333036 .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Parmesh Bali, Mr. Gagan Garg,

Mr. Shivam Srivastav, Mr. Keshav

Maheshwari and Mr. Abhishek

Nandan, Advs.

versus

1. STATE (GNCTD)

Through Its Standing Counsel (Crl.)

Lawyers Chambers

Delhi High Court

New Delhi .....Respondent No.1

2. SMT. SADHANA MEHROTA

W/o Late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra,

R/o E-11, Third Floor, Defence Colony,

New Delhi-110024. ….Respondent No.2

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

Mr. Yashpal Singh, Mr. Abhinandan

Gautam and Mr. Himanshu Baliyan,

Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The aforementioned Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section

482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as „CrPC‟), have been filed on behalf of the

Petitioners, namely, Manoj Mishra and Suresh Kumar to quash the

Criminal Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1079/2015 under Section

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 3 of 16

341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

„IPC‟) registered at Police Station Amar Colony and also against the Orders

dated 18.04.2017 and 03.08.2018, respectively, whereby Charges under

Section 341/34 IPC were framed and also against the Order dated

20.07.2018 vide which additional Charge under Section 354 IPC, was

directed to be framed against the Petitioners.

2. The Petitioners have stated that there was an untimely and sudden

death of Mr. Somesh Mehrotra, one of the Directors of VLS at the young

age of 48 years under mysterious circumstances, at his residence on

22.08.2015. Thereafter, the guards including the Petitioners, were appointed

to safeguard and protect the office and monitor and regulate the movement

of visitors in the Office of the VLS Group Companies, in order to instil

security and confidence amongst his employees, who were under a state of

shock and fear because of the mysterious death.

3. Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, father of the deceased, Mr. Somesh

Mehrotra, had made Complaints to the Local Police on 22.08.2015 in regard

to the suspicious and mysterious death of his son, which was investigated by

the Crime Team of Delhi Police. Thereafter, FIR No.246/2016 under Section

304 IPC, was registered, which is pending investigation.

4. The Petitioners had joined the services and duties as guards on

17.09.2015 and were posted at the Office of VLS Group of Companies at

13, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. There was another

Guard also appointed.

5. The Respondent No.2/Ms. Sadhana Mehrotra, wife of Late Mr.

Somesh Mehrotra (about which the Petitioners were not aware), who

admittedly was neither an employee nor official or the Director of the

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 4 of 16

Company, along with one male colleague, visited the Office on 18.09.2015

and forcibly tried to enter into the private Office premises, despite it not

being a public place. She did not disclose the details, particulars and purpose

of visit. The Petitioners as part of their guard duties, politely requested them

to give their particulars, details, etc. in the Visitor Register, but they refused

in abusive language and tried to enter the premises forcibly.

6. However, the Respondent No. 2 made a false and frivolous Complaint

with sole aim and objective to satisfy her high inflated egos, high socio-

financial stature, as to how could the Petitioners being only the Guards,

could dare to ask her and her colleague to give their details and particulars

about whom they had come to meet and to make the necessary entry in the

Visitor Register. The Respondent No. 2 in order to teach a lesson to the

Petitioner, filed the false and mala fide Complaint alleging that he had held

her upper arm to stop her and her male colleague, from forcibly entering the

premises.

7. A call was made to No. 100 on 18.09.2015, for lodging the Complaint

against the Petitioners. The Petitioners were thereafter, handed over to the

Local Police.

8. It is claimed that the Respondent No. 2 deliberately did not give any

Complaint to the Police on 18.09.2015 and also did not get herself medically

examined, as no such incident actually had happened, which necessitated

making a Criminal Complaint under Section 341/506/34 IPC. The

Petitioners have further submitted that as a part of well thought of strategy,

Respondent No. 2 under some legal advice, made this false Complaint

dated 19.09.2015, implicating the Petitioners.

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 5 of 16

9. Thereafter, she, again under further legal advice, made a Complaint

dated 22.09.2015 at Police Station Amar Colony. On the basis of the second

Complaint, FIR No. 1079/2015 under Section 341/506/34 IPC, was

registered against the Petitioners. After investigations, which were not fair, a

Charge-Sheet under Section 173 CrPC, was filed in the Court.

10. It is asserted that the entire gamut of facts and circumstances reveal

that no offence under Section 341/354/34 IPC is made out against the

Petitioners, who acted purely in discharge of their duties as Guards.

11. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after the filing of the Charge-Sheet,

took cognizance for the offences under Section 341/34 IPC. A Protest

Petition under Section 173(8) CrPC was filed by the Respondent No.

2/Complainant. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide Order dated

18.04.2017 dismissed the Protest Petition of Respondent No. 2 seeking

further investigations. The Charges under Section 341/34 IPC were

framed on 18.04.2017.

12. The Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 350/2017

praying for framing of Additional Charge under Section 354 IPC. The

Revision Petition was allowed vide Order dated 20.07.2018 by the learned

ASJ, directing the learned Trial Court to frame the Additional Charge under

Section 354 IPC. In compliance thereof, the Additional Charge under

Section 354 IPC was framed against the Petitioners on 03.08.2018.

13. The Petitioners have sought the quashing of the two Orders on

Charge, on the ground that ex facie on the basis of averments made in the

Complaint, no offence under either of the Sections, is disclosed against the

Petitioners. Furthermore, Section 34 IPC has been added without disclosing

how common intention is attracted in the facts of this Case. It is claimed that

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 6 of 16

the present Complaint has the sole objective to wreak vengeance and satisfy

the inflated egos. There is no medical record to corroborate that the

Respondent No. 2 had suffered any injuries.

14. Reliance is placed on Popular Mutiah vs. State represented by

Inspector of Police, reported as JT 2006 (6) SC 332 wherein it was held that

that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to correct

the errors of the courts below and to pass appropriate orders necessary to do

justice between the parties. Reliance is also placed on State of Karnataka vs.

Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699.

15. A prayer is therefore, made that the entire Charge-Sheet along with

the two Orders on Charge, be quashed.

16. The Respondent No. 2, Ms. Sadhana Mehrotra in her Reply, has

explained that Late Mr. Somesh Mehrotra, her husband was a renowned

name in the field of corporate services and had 20 years’ experience. With

his hard work and skill, he had built up VLS Group of Companies and other

subsidiary Companies. He had accumulated a number of assets and held

valuable estate. He was a great philanthropist, who believed in serving the

society. He was promoter and Director in VLS Group and was holding

(96,38,020 shares (41.61%) in VLS Capital Limited and had controlling

stake in the Company.

17. Mr. Somesh Mehrotra, her husband, died on 22.08.2015 and was

survived by the Respondent No. 2 and their minor daughter, Ms. Daya. In

October-December, 2014, Late Mr. Somesh Mehrotra along with his wife

and daughter, had shifted from C-561, First Floor, Defence Colony, New

Delhi to rented premises at E-11, Third Floor, Defence Colony because of

the pressure created by Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, her father-in-law.

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 7 of 16

Untimely demise of Mr. Somesh Mehrotra, left the Respondent No. 2 and

the minor daughter emotionally drained and they had not been able to find

strength to accept the loss and to face the struggle of the life, in his absence.

18. A Complaint dated 19.09.2015 was given to ACP by the Respondent

No. 2 stating that she was being pressurised, threatened and emotionally

influenced to give away her husband’s hard earned and nurtured Companies,

at a throw away price. She and her daughter, were in constant fear of death

and loss of property and reputation at the hands of father-in-law, brother-in-

law and Mr. Rajesh Jhalani, CA, with the aid and assistance of other

confidantes.

19. Mr. Vikas Mehrotra, the brother-in-law during one of his visits on

05.09.2015 to the residence of the Respondent No. 2, had tried to convince

her that the VLS Group Companies were facing various litigations and that

it was not a suitable place for her and her daughter to stay. He suggested that

she may take some money against the shares and severe all the relations and

ties with them and that he would help them to settle separately.

20. Being apprehensive of the dubious conduct of Mr. Vikas and Mr.

Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra and with a view to have an idea of the shares and

estate of her late husband, she tried to contact the Directors and Officers of

VLS Group Companies, but they were all hostile against her. She then

contacted Mr. Rajesh Jhalani by e-mail dated 14.09.2015 seeking

information, but all her requests fell to deaf ears, as he also failed to respond

to her e-mails.

21. On 14.09.2015, her father-in-law had called her at some place outside

the family residence or Office premises, to have discussions. They met at

Hotel Hyatt where the father-in-law repeatedly asked the Respondent No. 2

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 8 of 16

as to what she wanted. When she expressed her desire to attend the Office,

he suggested that he could attend the office, but must not touch or disturb

anything, thereby implying total denial of control.

22. She came to know that Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra had managed to

be on the Board of Directors of the Companies and he controlled the Board,

as well as the staff of the Company.

23. Neither brother-in-law, Mr. Vikas Mehrotra nor father-in-law, went to

Haridwar for immersion of the ashes of Late Mr. Somesh Mehrotra. Instead,

they went around searching and taking away all the records of Mr. Somesh

Mehrotra. As a part of the conspiracy, they got the Guards posted at the

Office premises.

24. The Respondent No. 2 on 16.08.2017, came to know that father-in-

law, brother-in-law, Ms. Divya Mehrotra and Directors of VLS Finance

Limited, had fraudulently got transferred 4,70,500 shares (approximately

Rs.5 Crores) of VLS Finance Limited in their names on 29.06.2015, owned

by Smt. Sushma Mehrotra, mother of her husband, who had died on

09.04.2015. Similar incident of fraud was committed in early September,

2015 when 4.10 Crores were transferred by father-in-law, as purported Karta

of HUF to the daughter Divya Mehrotra, who in turn invested the same with

Mr. Vikas Mehrotra. Such acts constituted criminal breach of trust and

conspiracy, as according to law, the HUF ceased to exist on 22.08.2015.

25. On the date of incident i.e. 18.09.2015 at about 04:30 p.m., she had

gone to the Office of VLS Group Companies along with one Mr. Virender

Bisht, when she was stopped by two bouncers, who were carrying pistol.

The Respondent No. 2 was manhandled and physically restrained from

entering the office premises. They disrespected her in front of the staff. As

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 9 of 16

she proceeded to the Office premises, Petitioner, Mr. Manoj Mishra held her

upper arm and stopped her, which made her scream. These bouncers had

been hired by her brother-in-law and father-in-law only two or three days

ago, with a view to prevent the entry of the Respondent No. 2. She then sat

on the staircase. On hearing her scream, Mr. K.K. Soni, Director VLS

Finance Limited, reached there and on enquiry, he told that Mr. Ashwani

knows about the appointment of Guards. Later, it was revealed that these

bouncers were hired by Mr. Vikas Mehrotra and the father-in-law and were

being paid Rs.30,000/- per month.

26. The Applicant, who is the brother of driver of Mr. Vikas Mehrotra,

provided photographs of the Respondent No. 2, in the phones of the

bouncers. She had an apprehension that supari was given to the bouncers by

Mr. Vikas Mehrotra. The Respondent No. 2 made a prayer in the Court to

take cognizance of the offence under Section 120B IPC against Mr. Vikas

Mehrotra, brother-in-law, and Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, father-in-law,

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Pradeep Sharma and other Directors of VLS

Finance Limited.

27. The Respondent No. 2 has further asserted that suffering the assault

on her modesty by the Petitioners, she came back home. She gave the

Complaint to ACP on the next day i.e. 19.09.2015. However, the

Complaint was against Mr. Vikas Mehrotra, father-in-law and Mr. Rajesh

Jhalani for their threats and criminal acts. The incident of 18.09.2015 was

also mentioned in the Complaint. However, no action has been taken by the

Police against the named persons.

28. Second Police Complaint dated 22.09.2015 specifically mentioning

the incident of 18.09.2015, was given, on which the present FIR was

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 10 of 16

registered. It was clearly stated by the Respondent No.2 that the bouncers

had told her that they were acting on the instructions of Mr. Vikas Mehrotra

and father-in-law, who had directed them to stop the Respondent No. 2 from

entering the office premises.

29. The Charge-Sheet was filed on 23.05.2016 without mentioning the

offences under Section 354/421/120B IPC. Therefore, she had filed Protest

Petition and the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 18.04.2017 held that

prima facie offence under Section 354 IPC was not made out and framed

Charges under Section 341/34 IPC. It is only on challenge to the Order

before the Revisional Court, that the Charges under Section 354 IPC were

framed.

30. On merits, all the averments made in the Petition, are denied. It is

asserted that from the Complaint, prima facie offence under Section 354

IPC, was clearly made out.

31. There is no infirmity in the Orders of Charge and the present

Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

32. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Respondent

No. 2 whereby she has reaffirmed the assertions made in her Reply.

Submissions heard and record perused.

33. The undisputed factual matrix is that the Petitioners were employed as

security guards on 17.09.2015, one day before the alleged incident of

18.09.2015. They were posted at the office premises of VLS Group of

Companies following the mysterious death of Mr. Somesh Mehrotra on

22.08.2015. The Respondent No. 2 (widow of Late Mr. Somesh Mehrotra)

was embroiled in disputes with her in-laws regarding shares and assets of

the deceased. It is in this backdrop of familial dispute, that the alleged

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 11 of 16

incident occurred on 18.09.2015, when Respondent No. 2 attempted to enter

the office premises.

34. The Charges under Section 341/34 IPC were framed against the

Petitioners on 18.04.2017 and additional Charge under Section 354 IPC was

framed on 03.08.2018, pursuant to the directions of learned ASJ in the

Re4vision Petition.

35. The core issue for consideration is whether the allegations made in

the Complaint, even if taken at face value, disclose the commission of

cognizable offences warranting continuation of criminal proceedings

against the petitioners.

Charge under Section 339/341 IPC:

36. The Petitioners have claimed that no offence under Section 341 was

made out against them.

37. To appreciate the contentions of the Petitioners, it would be relevant

to reproduce Section 339 IPC, which defines Wrongful Restraint, which is

punishable under Section 341 IPC. Section 339 IPC reads as under:

“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent

that person from proceeding in any direction in which that

person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain

that person.

Exception — The obstruction of a private way over land or

water which a person in good faith believes himself to have

a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the

meaning of this section.”

38. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful

restraint are: (1) that there is an obstruction; (2) that the obstruction prevents

a person from proceeding in any direction, and (3) that the person so

proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 12 of 16

39. A plain reading of Section 339 IPC, makes it clear that the offence of

wrongful restraint is attracted only when a person voluntarily obstructs

another so as to prevent him from proceeding in a direction in which he has

a lawful right to proceed. Thus, the existence of a deliberate obstruction

coupled with the infringement of a legally protected right of movement, is

sine qua non for the offence.

40. Significantly, the Exception carves out a qualification that when

caused by a person acting in good faith under the belief that he has a lawful

right to do so, such act does not amount to wrongful restraint. Consequently,

where such bona fide belief exists, the foundational elements of the offence

of wrongful restraint under Section 339 IPC are absent, and therefore, the

penal consequences contemplated under Section 341 IPC do not arise.

41. Here, the Complainant herself in her Complaint dated 19.09.2015 had

stated that 18.09.2015 at about 04:30 p.m., she along with Mr. Virender

Bhatt, had gone to the business Office of VLS Companies where two

Guards/Petitioners were found posted, who stopped her from entering the

Office and that one of him was carrying a weapon. When she questioned

them, they informed her that Mr. Vikas Mehrotra and Mr. Mahesh Prasad

Mehrotra had given instructions to them to bar her from entering the office

premises. As she proceeded towards the Office, one of the Guard

(Petitioner/Manoj Mishra) held her upper arm, to restrain her from entering

the Office. She screamed in panic. On hearing, Mr. K.K. Soni, the Director

reached the spot. Later, on further enquiry, she came to know that the two

Guards had been hired by her brother-in-law and father-in-law, to bar her

from entering the Office.

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 13 of 16

42. From the averments made in the Complaint, the first aspect, which

emerges is that the incident of 18.09.2015. The Respondent No. 2 had given

a detailed Complaint on 19.09.2015, which contained allegations against her

brother-in-law, father-in-law and others for entering into a conspiracy to

deprive her of the legitimate dues of her late husband, who had died on

22.08.2015. In the said Complaint, she had also made reference to the

incident on 18.09.2015. However, no action was taken by the Police on the

Complaint, which prompted the Complainant to make the second Complaint

on 22.09.2015, which was specifically targeted towards the incident of

18.09.2015.

43. In this regard, it may be observed that the Complainant is the wife of

Late Mr. Somesh Mehrotra and after his demise, had disputes over the

property and assets with her in-laws immediately upon the demise of her

husband. The in-laws, brother-in-law, father-in-law and others, were making

an endeavour to make the Complainant give or sell her shares to them and

even the meetings were held with her, on different dates.

44. It is in this backdrop, that the incident of 18.09.2015 needs to be

appreciated.

45. The Complainant herself had stated in her Complaint that the

Applicant and another guard, had been posted by her brother-in-law and

father-in-law to prevent her entry into the office premises of VLS Group

Companies. She has nowhere asserted that she was regularly visiting the

premises or had a right to enter into the premises. Pertinently, she stated that

while she was making an endeavour to enter the Office, she was restrained

by the Petitioner, who was the Security Guard, by holding her upper arm to

prevent her from entering the office.

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 14 of 16

46. The Petitioners being Security Guards, had the bounden duty to

ensure that no unauthorised person enters the office premises. The

Complainant had nowhere asserted or even prima facie stated that she had a

right to enter into the Office premises. Furthermore, the Security Guards, as

per the Complaint itself, were discharging the duties for which they had

been employed by the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the Complainant.

Such act of restraining the Complainant for entering the Office for which

she had no right, cannot be termed as an act of wrongful restraint.

47. Furthermore, in terms of the Exception, it is evident that the act of the

Petitioners was in good faith in order to discharge their duties.

48. It may be an unfortunate case where a young widow faces alleged

harassment at the hands of the in-laws who may have appointed the Guards

to prevent her entry into the office premises, but it nowhere shows even a

prima facie case of Section 341 against the Applicants.

49. The Complaint, therefore, if read as a whole, does not disclose the

offence under Section 341 IPC.

Charge under Section 354 IPC:

50. Having concluded that no offence under Section 341 IPC is made out,

it is imperative to now examine whether the more serious charge under

Section 354 IPC which was added subsequently on 03.08.2018, in terms of

the Order of the learned Revisional Court, is prima facie made out.

51. It is trite law that to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC,

criminal force must be applied against her with the intent to outrage her

modesty. The pertinent aspect is that as per the Complainant herself, she

was caught by the Petitioners from her arm, in an endeavour to restrain her

from entering the Office premises. By no stretch of imagination, can it be

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 15 of 16

said that this act was intended with a “sexual intent” to outrage her modesty.

Significantly, no such allegations have been made in the Complaint and no

such intention can be inferred from the acts of the Petitioners as mentioned

in the Complaint. Clearly, it was an act of restraining the Complainant from

entering the premises and no offence under Section 354/34 IPC is made out

against the Petitioners.

52. It is, therefore, held that no Charges under Section 341/34/354 IPC

have been made out.

53. In the end, it would be pertinent to observe that the comprehensive

reading of the Complaint reflects that it is a conflict between the

Complainant and her in-laws, after the demise of her husband. The incident

happened on 18.09.2015 and the Complainant had made a complaint on the

next day, i.e. 19.09.2015 wherein the grievance was essentially against the

in-laws and there was merely a passing reference to the incident dated

18.09.2015, in the context of employing the guards to prevent her entry in

the office. Finding that no action was taken on her complaint, she made

another Complaint dated 22.09.2015 (FIR No.1079/2015) wherein the

Petitioners were made the real perpetrators of alleged crime. It is evident

that in this family fight, the Petitioners, who were the Security Guards who

had been employed just a day before the incident, were targeted when the

Complainant was unable to mobilize the Police against her in-laws. It is

clearly a case of abuse of process of law and the Charge Sheet itself is liable

to be quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

Relief:

54. The Petitions are allowed and the Charge Sheet in FIR No.

1079/2015, along with the impugned Orders dated 18.04.2017 and

CRL.M.C. 6474/2018 & CRL.M.C. 2524/2019 Page 16 of 16

03.08.2018 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framing the Charges

under Section 341/34 IPC and Section 354 IPC respectively, is hereby

quashed.

55. The Petitioners are discharged from the aforesaid offences.

56. The pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JANUARY 05, 2026/RS