Delhi High Court Quashes Landlord’s Tenant-Verification FIR; Holds Section 144 Order Cannot Apply Retrospectively to Tenancy Commenced Before Its 60-Day Operative Period Began
Delhi High Court Quashes Landlord’s FIR for Not Verifying Tenants; Holds Preventive Section 144 Order Cannot Retrospectively Cover Pre-Existing Tenancies
Facts
The petitioner, Arvind Malik, approached the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 407/2019 dated 14 September 2019 registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar under Section 188 IPC, along with consequential proceedings.
On 5 July 2019, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division Model Town, issued an order under Section 144 CrPC directing that no landlord, owner or person should let, sublet or rent accommodation within the specified police-station areas without furnishing the tenant’s particulars to the concerned SHO.
On 14 September 2019, police officials visited House No. 1395, Ground Floor, Mukherjee Nagar for tenant verification. They found two women, Vaishali and Ratna Kumari, who stated that they were residing there as tenants and had given their verification documents to the petitioner. When Arvind Malik arrived, he allegedly admitted that they were his tenants and that their police verification had not been completed. An FIR under Section 188 IPC was consequently registered.
After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. Significantly, it was filed without a written complaint by the ACP as contemplated under Section 195 CrPC. The Trial Court nevertheless took cognizance on 28 October 2021 and framed a charge under Section 188 IPC on 12 July 2023.
During proceedings before the High Court, however, the petitioner confined his relief to quashing of the FIR, and did not independently press the challenges to the summoning and charge-framing orders.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether the ACP’s tenant-verification order dated 5 July 2019 applied to a tenancy that had already commenced before that order came into force.
- Whether a preventive order issued under Section 144 CrPC could be given retrospective operation.
- Whether failure to verify tenants whose tenancy predated the ACP order could constitute disobedience punishable under Section 188 IPC.
- Whether the FIR disclosed the commission of any offence against the petitioner when its own contents showed that the tenants had been residing in the premises for approximately four months before the police inspection.
- Whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS could be exercised to quash the FIR when the factual allegations themselves did not constitute the alleged offence.
- Whether the absence of a written complaint by the competent public servant under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC affected the prosecution for Section 188 IPC.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner first argued that the FIR proceeded on the incorrect assumption that he was the owner or landlord of the premises.
According to him, the Investigating Officer had neither verified ownership before registration of the FIR nor examined title documents, tenancy records or other ownership material during investigation. The prosecution case rested essentially upon oral statements.
More importantly, the petitioner invoked Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC, contending that a Court is expressly barred from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or an administratively superior public servant.
No such complaint had been filed before registration of the FIR, with the charge-sheet, or before the Trial Court took cognizance. The petitioner therefore contended that the prosecution was legally unsustainable.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State relied principally upon the contents of the FIR.
It argued that the petitioner himself had admitted that the two women were his tenants and that their police verification had not been completed.
Accordingly, the State contended that he had violated the ACP’s order dated 5 July 2019 and therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court began by reiterating that its power under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly.
However, the power remains available where continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute abuse of process or where intervention is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Nature and Duration of the Section 144 Order
The decisive feature was the actual wording of the ACP’s order.
The order came into force on 5 July 2019 and expressly remained effective for 60 days, until 2 September 2019. It prohibited letting, subletting or renting accommodation without furnishing tenant particulars to the concerned police station.
The Court interpreted this to mean that the order governed tenancies coming into existence during its operative period.
It could not govern tenancies that had already commenced before 5 July 2019.
The Court further held that an order passed under Section 144 CrPC is preventive in nature and therefore could not be retrospectively applied to a tenancy that already existed before the order was issued.
FIR Itself Defeated the Prosecution Case
Crucially, the Court did not need to undertake a disputed factual inquiry to reach this conclusion.
The FIR itself recorded that the two women stated that they had been living in the premises for approximately four months as of the police inspection on 14 September 2019.
Thus, even on the prosecution’s own version, their tenancy had commenced before the ACP issued the order on 5 July 2019.
Accordingly, applying that later order to their pre-existing tenancy would amount to giving it retrospective operation, which was impermissible.
Precedent Analysis
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
The principal precedent relied upon by the High Court was the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
The Court reproduced the recognised categories in which extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings.
Of particular relevance were situations where:
- allegations in the FIR, even if accepted entirely, do not prima facie constitute an offence;
- uncontroverted allegations and material collected do not disclose commission of an offence;
- allegations are inherently improbable; or
- there exists an express legal bar against institution or continuation of proceedings.
The present case fell within the basic rationale of Bhajan Lal because, even accepting the FIR’s own allegations, the tenancy had commenced before the ACP’s order and therefore its continuation could not amount to disobedience of that order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning turned on a straightforward chronology.
First, the ACP’s order was issued on 5 July 2019.
Second, it was expressly operative only for 60 days—from 5 July to 2 September 2019.
Third, when police inspected the premises on 14 September 2019, the tenants themselves stated that they had already been residing there for approximately four months.
Their tenancy therefore necessarily predated the ACP’s order.
The Court held that the order could not retrospectively regulate a tenancy that had already commenced. Consequently, the police inspection on 14 September 2019 could not reveal any act of disobedience of the 5 July 2019 order capable of constituting an offence under Section 188 IPC.
The Court additionally observed that even the charge-sheet relied solely upon the 5 July 2019 order as the basis for the alleged Section 188 offence. There was no independent foundation capable of sustaining the prosecution.
Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 188 IPC were not made out.
An important nuance is that although the petitioner raised the Section 195 CrPC bar, the Court ultimately quashed the case on the more fundamental ground that the ACP order did not apply to the pre-existing tenancy and hence no Section 188 offence was constituted.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the ACP’s preventive tenant-verification order under Section 144 CrPC could not be retrospectively applied to a tenancy that had commenced before the order came into force.
Since the FIR itself showed that the two tenants had been residing at the premises for approximately four months before the September 2019 inspection, their tenancy predated the 5 July 2019 order.
Accordingly, no offence under Section 188 IPC was made out.
The High Court therefore:
allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 407/2019 dated 14 September 2019, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Case Details
Case: Arvind Malik v. State NCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2712/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10991/2026; CNR No. DLHC010146722026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: 24 August 2026
Result: Petition Allowed; FIR No. 407/2019 under Section 188 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed
