Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash Corruption FIR Against Tea-Stall Operator; Finds Repeated Bribe Collection for Policeman Prima Facie Shows Conspiracy and Knowledge
Delhi High Court Rejects Tea-Stall Operator’s Plea to Quash Bribery FIR; Finds She Acted as Policeman’s Conduit in Receiving ₹5,000 Payments
Facts
The petitioner, Sunita, approached the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 08/2025 dated 10 June 2025 registered at Police Station Vigilance, Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings against her.
The complainant’s brother had lodged a case at Police Station Govind Puri against the complainant and his family. When the complainant and his family met Investigating Officer ASI Sushil Sharma on 7 June 2025, the ASI allegedly demanded ₹50,000 for removing the names of the complainant’s minor daughters from that case. When the complainant expressed inability to pay, the alleged demand was reduced to ₹10,000.
According to the prosecution, the ASI directed the complainant to give ₹5,000 to Sunita, who operated a tea stall near the gate of Police Station Govind Puri. The complainant accordingly handed her ₹5,000.
The complainant subsequently approached Vigilance and a trap was arranged. During the trap, another ₹5,000 in tainted currency was allegedly handed to Sunita at her tea stall. She then entered the police station and allegedly delivered the money to ASI Sushil Sharma. The same currency notes were recovered from the ASI in the presence of panch witnesses.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the FIR disclosed any prima facie offence against Sunita when she was admittedly not a public servant.
- Whether absence of an allegation that Sunita herself demanded illegal gratification entitled her to quashing of the Section 7 PC Act proceedings.
- Whether her alleged receipt and delivery of the money could be regarded merely as an innocent or passive physical act without the requisite mens rea.
- Whether the allegations and surrounding circumstances prima facie disclosed criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS between Sunita and the ASI.
- Whether the Court could assess the evidentiary value of CDRs, CCTV footage, audio recordings and the complainant’s statement while exercising quashing jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Sunita argued that she did not fall within the definition of a “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act. She was a divorcee running a small tea stall outside Police Station Govind Puri and had neither any connection with the police department nor authority to influence a criminal investigation.
She argued that the demand for illegal gratification originated exclusively from ASI Sushil Sharma. There was no allegation that she initiated or participated in making the demand.
Since proof of demand is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, she contended that the prosecution could not continue against her.
She further submitted that merely receiving ₹5,000 and handing it to the ASI amounted, at best, to a passive physical act. She claimed to have no prior knowledge that the money constituted illegal gratification and therefore lacked the requisite mens rea.
She also denied criminal conspiracy, contending that there was no material establishing any prior agreement or meeting of minds between herself and the ASI.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed quashing and contended that Sunita was not an innocent intermediary but was actively functioning as a conduit for the ASI pursuant to a pre-planned arrangement.
The prosecution relied upon CDR analysis showing that Sunita and the ASI were telephonically in contact four times on 7 June 2025, when the first ₹5,000 was allegedly paid, and three times on 10 June 2025, the date of the trap.
The State further relied upon CCTV footage, audio recordings and the complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS as corroborating material.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court reiterated that quashing an FIR under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy.
Such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Quashing may be appropriate where the allegations, even if accepted entirely at face value, fail to prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.
However, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage by weighing evidence, determining probabilities or testing the credibility of witnesses. Those questions belong to the trial.
The Court further held that Sunita’s argument concerning the absence of ingredients under Section 7 PC Act could not be considered in isolation because the FIR also specifically alleged criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS. The allegations therefore had to be examined cumulatively.
Criminal Conspiracy
The Court emphasized that conspiracy is ordinarily hatched in secrecy. Direct evidence identifying the exact moment at which conspirators reached an agreement is rarely available.
Consequently, a conspiracy may legitimately be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. Whether those circumstances ultimately establish guilt is a question for trial.
Precedent Analysis
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
The Court relied upon the landmark Supreme Court judgment governing quashing of FIRs.
Bhajan Lal identifies illustrative circumstances in which inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction may be exercised, including where:
- allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence;
- uncontroverted allegations and supporting material fail to disclose an offence;
- allegations are inherently absurd or improbable;
- there exists an express legal bar; or
- proceedings are manifestly mala fide or maliciously instituted.
The Court applied these principles but found that Sunita’s case did not fall within the categories warranting quashing because the allegations, when taken together, prima facie disclosed her involvement.
Murali Krishna R. v. State of Karnataka
Sunita relied upon this Karnataka High Court decision in support of her argument that the absence of demand of illegal gratification by her was fatal to the prosecution.
The Delhi High Court distinguished the precedent.
It noted that the FIR in Murali Krishna R. had been registered only under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the present FIR additionally alleged criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS.
Accordingly, that precedent could not govern Sunita’s case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the allegations concerning the first ₹5,000 payment on 7 June 2025 particularly significant.
According to the FIR, after receiving and counting the money, Sunita remarked that it was only ₹5,000 and not ₹10,000. She then telephoned ASI Sushil Sharma and informed him that ₹5,000 had been received. The Court considered this conduct relevant to whether she knew the purpose for which the money was being collected.
Her alleged role was repeated during the trap on 10 June.
When the complainant reached her tea stall, Sunita allegedly contacted the ASI. The ASI then came outside, spoke with the complainant and directed him to hand over the money to Sunita. She allegedly received the tainted ₹5,000, entered the police station and delivered it to the ASI, from whose possession it was ultimately recovered.
Viewed cumulatively, the Court held that Sunita could not, at the quashing stage, be treated merely as an innocent person who happened to physically handle the money.
The allegations prima facie indicated that she acted as the ASI’s “intermediary/conduit” and was aware of the transaction. Consequently, her involvement in a conspiracy could not be ruled out.
The CDR material provided additional support at this preliminary stage because it showed regular telephonic contact between Sunita and the ASI around the relevant transactions. The complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS was also part of the prosecution material.
The Court nevertheless clarified that the evidentiary weight of the CDRs was a matter to be determined at trial, rather than finally adjudicated during quashing proceedings.
Accordingly, determining whether Sunita actually possessed the necessary knowledge, whether there was a meeting of minds and whether the prosecution evidence ultimately proved conspiracy would require trial.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that Sunita had failed to establish a case for quashing the FIR at this stage.
Although she was not a public servant and had not herself allegedly originated the demand for illegal gratification, the prosecution case could not be examined only through Section 7 of the PC Act because the FIR also alleged criminal conspiracy.
Her alleged conduct in receiving ₹5,000 on two occasions, counting the first payment, communicating its amount to the ASI, contacting him during the trap and subsequently delivering the tainted currency to him constituted sufficient prima facie material to require trial.
The High Court therefore dismissed the petition and refused to quash FIR No. 08/2025 or the consequential proceedings against her.
Case Details
Case: Sunita v. State of NCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1858/2026
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: 31 August 2026
Result: Petition dismissed; Delhi High Court refused to quash the corruption and criminal conspiracy FIR against the petitioner, leaving the allegations and evidence to be tested at trial.
