SUBHASH PAHWA @ SUBHASH CHANDER vs STATE OFNCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 21th August, 2025 Pronounced on: 28th October, 2025 + W.P.(CRL) 3143/2023 SUBHASH PAHWA @ SUBHASH CHANDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Gaur and Mr. Kumar Balram, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates. Mr. Vinay Kumar, SI, PS-Vasant Kunj North. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J. 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2) arises out of a prosecution pertaining to a robbery involving an ‘Ertiga’ vehicle. The Petitioner seeks two distinct, though interrelated, reliefs. The primary relief is for quashing of CC No. 49189/2016 titled State v. Sandeep 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3143/2023 Page 1 of 20 By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:28.10.2025 18:12:43 and for setting aside the conviction order dated 16th September, 2015, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in FIR No. 306/2012 at P.S. Vasant Kunj (North). In the alternative, invoking the protection against double jeopardy enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, the Petitioner prays that Respondents No. 2 to 4 be directed not to consider the said FIR and conviction order as a disqualifying factor while assessing his case for premature release. The petition thus raises a pertinent question for consideration: whether the extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked to reopen a concluded criminal conviction, and if not, whether the subsisting conviction can be r