Sharmila vs Rattan Lal

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

115
CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 31.10.2026
Sharmila ...Petitioner
Versus
Rattan Lal ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the order dated
11.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pataudi, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to
face trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in complaint
bearing No.RBT-1163 dated 28.01.2010/19.01.2013 titled as ‘Rattan Lal v.
Sharmila’ , the order dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-9, passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the revision petition
filed against the said order, as well as for quashing of the complaint itself
(Annexure P-5) including all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Kanwar
Lal, son of the respondent, on 09.11.2006, who was serving as a Constable in
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 2
the Army in the Signal Regiment, 25 Infantry Division, Rajouri (Jammu).
The couple had no issue. On 20.09.2009, Kanwar Lal came home on one
month's leave. On the night of 29.09.2009, he started vomiting in his room
after taking his dinner. He was taken to General Hospital, Rewari, where it
was found to be a case of aluminium phosphide (celphos) poisoning. As his
condition was serious, he was referred to a higher centre, but he died on the
way.
3. On 30.09.2009, SI Kishan Lal of Police Station Farrukh Nagar
recorded the statement of the respondent at General Hospital, Rewari, and
carried out the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. In this statement
(Annexure P-1), the respondent stated that his son had told him that he had
taken some poisonous substance and had asked him to save him. He also
stated that his son was under some mental tension and that he did not suspect
anyone. The statement of Ram Kumar, brother of the respondent, was also
recorded on the same lines. The postmortem examination on the dead body
was conducted at General Hospital, Rewari on the same day, and the viscera
was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban.
4. Thereafter, the respondent made complaint No.1190/P dated
03.11.2009 to the police, alleging that the petitioner had administered poison
to his son. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Manesar enquired into the
complaint and, vide report dated 28.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), found that the
petitioner had not given poison to the deceased. As per this report, the
complaint had been made because the service benefits of the deceased were
to go to the petitioner. The respondent then sent a number of complaints to
various authorities, including the Director General of Police and the National
Human Rights Commission. These were enquired into by the Assistant
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 3
Commissioner of Police, Pataudi, who submitted his report dated 25.01.2010
(Annexure P-3). He found that the deceased was addicted to liquor and was
under mental tension on account of disputes in the family regarding partition.
He also noted an earlier attempt by the deceased to end his life, in which the
petitioner had saved him, and concluded that the allegations were false.
Another complaint No.195 dated 10.03.2010 was enquired into by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bhondsi, who reached the same
conclusion vide report dated 18.06.2010 (Annexure P-4). No FIR was
registered on any of these complaints.
5. In the meantime, on 28.01.2010, the respondent filed a criminal
complaint under Section 302 IPC (Annexure P-5) against the petitioner
before the learned Magistrate. He alleged that the petitioner was not happy
with the marriage and mostly stayed at her parental home. According to him,
she and her family members used to threaten to implicate his family in a false
dowry case. It was alleged that on 29.09.2009 at about 9/9.30 PM, he heard
his son shouting for help. On reaching the room, he found his son vomiting
and the petitioner present there. While being taken to the hospital in a
vehicle, his son told him and the other occupants that the petitioner had given
him some poisonous substance with the intention to kill him. He further
alleged that after the postmortem, the petitioner left for her parental village
with her father and took away her jewellery and other valuables. He stated
that he had moved several applications to the police and higher officers, but
no action had been taken against the petitioner.
6. In preliminary evidence, the complainant examined himself as
PW10 (Annexure P-6). He also examined PW1 Dr. Deepak Verma, PW2
Constable Parveen Kumar, PW3 EHC Inderjeet, PW4 Shiv Kumar, PW5 SI
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 4
Kishan Lal, PW6 Surender Kumar, PW7 Ram Mehar, PW8 Ram Kumar and
PW9 Dr. Kamlesh Kumar. He tendered in evidence the postmortem report
Ex.PA, a copy of the DDR entry Ex.PD, the inquest report Ex.PE, the
medical report Ex.PG, the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PM and
copies of his applications to the police authorities and the National Human
Rights Commission. Vide order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-7), the
learned Magistrate held that a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC was
made out and summoned the petitioner. The revision petition filed by the
petitioner (Annexure P-8) was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-9). Hence, the
present petition. Vide order dated 16.07.2014, this Court stayed further
proceedings before the learned trial Court and the interim order was extended
from time to time, which is still continuing.
7. Upon notice, the respondent has filed a reply. He has pleaded
that the married life of the couple was not smooth and that the petitioner
remained at her parental home for most of the time. It is pleaded that
aluminium phosphide was administered to the deceased by the petitioner,
who was present with him but did not help him in any manner. As per the
reply, the deceased was brought to General Hospital, Rewari at 10:55 PM,
where Dr. Kamlesh Kumar found it to be a case of celphos poisoning. The
respondent has further pleaded that the police obtained his signatures on
certain papers when the dead body was at the stage of cremation. The three
enquiries are stated to be based on the statement of the petitioner alone and
on presumptions, and to have been influenced by village representatives. The
statements of PW4 Shiv Kumar, PW6 Surender Kumar and PW10 Rattan Lal
have been placed on record as Annexures R-1 to R-3. It is also pleaded that
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 5
the petitioner remarried on 07.03.2011, but obtained appointment as an
Anganwari worker on the basis of her status as a widow. A copy of the
judgment dated 06.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Rewari in that regard has been placed on record as Annexure R-4.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated by her father-in-law only to deprive her of the
service benefits of her deceased husband. The respondent himself, in his
statement recorded on 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-1), stated that his son told
him about having consumed poison on his own, and he did not suspect
anyone. The proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were concluded on the
basis of this statement. The allegation against the petitioner was raised for the
first time on 03.11.2009, more than a month after the occurrence, when the
respondent came to know that the service benefits would go to the petitioner.
Learned counsel has further argued that the allegations of the respondent
were enquired into three times by different police officers and were found to
be false on each occasion. These facts were not disclosed by the respondent
either in the complaint or in his statement before the learned Magistrate, and
so he did not approach the Court with clean hands. In this regard, reliance has
been placed upon Kuldip Raj Mahajan v. Hukam Chand, 2008(1) RCR
(Criminal) 370 . It is also argued that the learned Revisional Court passed a
vague order without giving any reason to disbelieve the three enquiries. Its
observation about the inquiry still going on is factually incorrect, as all the
enquiries had been concluded much earlier. The impugned orders are, thus,
the result of non-application of mind and liable to be set aside along with the
complaint. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 6
9. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent has argued that
the petition is without merit. The petitioner was alone with the deceased in
the room when he started vomiting. On the way to the hospital, the deceased
told the occupants of the vehicle that the petitioner had given him poison.
This oral dying declaration has been supported in preliminary evidence by
PW6 Surender Kumar and PW7 Ram Mehar, who are independent witnesses,
besides PW8 Ram Kumar and the complainant himself. The medical
evidence also shows that the deceased died due to poisoning. Learned counsel
has further argued that the police enquiries were one-sided and were
conducted without recording the statements of the neighbours. These were
only preliminary enquiries on complaints and have no binding force. As the
police did not register an FIR, the respondent was left with no option except
to file the complaint. The learned Magistrate passed the summoning order
after recording the evidence of ten witnesses, and the learned Revisional
Court rightly declined to interfere. The truthfulness of the versions of the
parties can only be tested during trial. Hence, it is urged that the petition is
liable to be dismissed. To buttress his arguments learned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the authorities cited as State of Haryana v. Ch.
Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , Shanmughan v. State of Kerala, 2012
Cri.L.J. 1489 (SC) , Dhaval Gopalbhai Darji v. State of Gujarat, 2013
Cri.L.J. 1225 and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2007
Cri.L.J. 20 (SC) .
10. This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable
length, besides going through the material placed on record.
11. The petitioner has been summoned on a private complaint after
the learned Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence under Sections 200 and
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 7
202 Cr.P.C. The question before this Court is whether the summoning order
suffers from any such illegality as would call for interference under Section
482 Cr.P.C.? The scope of inquiry at the stage of issuing process is limited.
The Magistrate has to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar and another v. State (NCT
of Delhi) and another, (2012) 5 SCC 424 , after referring to Smt. Nagawwa
v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 736 ,
explained this position in the following words:
“13. In Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736 , this Court held that it
is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a
detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the
case. It was further held that in deciding whether a
process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into
consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the
complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in
support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given
an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion
has to be judicially exercised by him. It was further held
that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, it
is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to
substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate
or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out
whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if
proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the
accused.
14. In Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports vs.
Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 139, this Court,
in para 9, held as under:
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 8
“9. In determining the question whether any process is to
be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied
is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
and not whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for
supporting the conviction, can be determined only at
the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. ....”
12. Thus, once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion judicially
on the basis of the material before him, the High Court is not to substitute its
own view or examine the merits to find out whether the allegations would
end in conviction. Interference is called for only where the allegations, even
if accepted in their entirety, do not make out any offence, or where the
proceedings are manifestly an abuse of the process of the Court, as
recognised in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) . The case of the petitioner has to be
examined in the light of these principles.
13. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the three enquiry reports (Annexures P-2 to P-4). It is not in
dispute that no FIR was registered on the complaints of the respondent. The
reports were submitted by the police officers on complaints made to the
police, and no investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. culminating in a
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was ever placed before a Magistrate. Such
enquiries reflect only the opinion of the enquiry officers, formed on the
statements recorded by them. They do not bind the Magistrate who takes
cognizance on a complaint. The law, in fact, gives a complainant the remedy
of approaching the Magistrate precisely when the police fail to act on his
information. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minu Kumari and another v.
State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 359 observed as under:
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 9
" When the information is laid with the Police, but no
action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given
power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the
Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate
having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence
and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the
complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In
case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima
facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is
empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate
into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit
a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose
any offence to take further action, he is empowered to
dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In
case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded
prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to
take cognizance of the offence and would issue process
to the accused. "
14. The present complaint was filed in exactly such a situation. The
learned Magistrate was required to form his own opinion on the basis of the
evidence led before him, and not on the opinion of the police officers. The
conclusion of the police officers in favour of the petitioner is, at best, a
circumstance on which she may rely in her defence. It cannot, by itself,
render the summoning order illegal. Moreover, the respondent has questioned
the fairness of these enquiries on the ground that the neighbours who
accompanied the deceased to the hospital were not examined. This Court is
not in a position to decide, in these proceedings, which of the two versions is
correct.
15. The judgment in Kuldip Raj Mahajan's case (supra) does not
help the petitioner. In that case, an FIR had been registered on the same
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 10
allegations and, after investigation by a Gazetted Officer, a cancellation
report had been submitted. The Magistrate had himself called for the report of
the Investigating Officer, but passed the summoning order without even
referring to it. The complainant had also concealed the cancellation report,
and there were other circumstances showing mala fide and unexplained
delay. It was in those facts that the summoning order was set aside. In the
present case, no FIR was registered, and no cancellation report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. was ever prepared. The question of the Magistrate being bound
to consider an investigation report, as in that case, therefore, did not arise.
16. More importantly, the record does not bear out the plea of
concealment. In para 7 of the complaint and in his statement as PW10, the
respondent specifically stated that he had moved applications to the police
and higher officers, but no action had been taken. He tendered his
applications Ex.PC, Ex.PF and Ex.PI to Ex.PL in evidence. He also examined
PW5 SI Kishan Lal, who had conducted the inquest proceedings, and
tendered the copy of the DDR entry Ex.PD and the inquest report Ex.PE.
Thus, the very proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., which according to
the petitioner were concealed, were brought on record by the complainant
himself. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, aware of the inquest
proceedings when he passed the summoning order.
17. The main plank of the case of the petitioner is the statement of
the respondent recorded on 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-1). The relevant portion
thereof, as per the translated copy on record, reads as under:
"... Yesterday on 29.09.2009 at about 8-09.00 P.M. my
son Kanwar Lal and his wife Sharmila went on sleep after
taking their dinner. My wife was sleeping in another room
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 11
and I was sleeping outside from the house. That my son
Kanwar Lal has done some vomiting and said that I
have administered some poisonous substance and save
me and I brought him to GH Rewari after arranging the
vehicle. ... My son Kanwar Lal had died due to taking
some poisonous substance because my son was in some
mental tension. Kanwar Lal had died due to some
poisonous substance. There is no suspicion in this. "
18. There is no doubt that this statement is not in line with the
version subsequently put forth by the respondent in his complaint. As noticed
in Annexure P-4, the brother of the respondent, Ram Kumar, had also made a
similar statement. However, the nature of these statements has to be kept in
view. They were recorded during the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C.,
the object of which is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pedda
Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153 held as
under:
"11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that
the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is
merely to ascertain whether a person has died under
suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if
so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question
regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted
or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was
assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these
circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law
was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these
details in the inquest report."
19. The proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. are, thus, meant only
to ascertain the apparent cause of death. A statement recorded in such
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 12
proceedings does not amount to a finding on the question as to who was
responsible for the death. The respondent has explained in his reply that his
signatures were obtained by the police on certain papers when the dead body
was at the stage of cremation. Whether this explanation is true, and which of
his two versions deserves to be believed, are pure questions of fact. The
earlier statement can certainly be put to the respondent and the other
witnesses during trial, in accordance with law, to test their credibility.
However, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
cannot hold one version to be true and the other to be false without evidence
being led. Doing so would amount to holding a mini trial, which is not
permissible at this stage. The same reasoning applies to the delay of about
five weeks in making the first complaint to the police, which the respondent
attributes to his grief and to the inaction of the police.
20. On the other hand, the evidence before the learned Magistrate
was not confined to the statement of the complainant alone. PW6 Surender
Kumar, the owner of the vehicle in which the deceased was taken to the
hospital, deposed that on the way the deceased was saying, "papa please save
me, Sharmila has given some poisonous substance" (Annexure R-2). PW4
Shiv Kumar, a neighbour, deposed that the respondent came to the house of
his uncle crying and told him that his son had been poisoned by his wife, and
asked for a vehicle (Annexure R-1). The summoning order records that PW7
Ram Mehar and PW8 Ram Kumar also supported the version given in the
complaint. It further records that the medical evidence showed the death to be
due to poisoning. These materials, if believed, are sufficient to make out a
prima facie case under Section 302 IPC. Their worth will have to be tested
during trial, where the petitioner will be at liberty to point out the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 13
contradictions in the versions of the witnesses, including the earlier statement
of PW8 Ram Kumar.
21. It is also relevant that the offence under Section 302 IPC is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session. In such a case, the proviso to
Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to call upon the complainant
to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. The learned
Magistrate examined ten witnesses, including two doctors and the police
officer who had conducted the inquest proceedings. It cannot, therefore, be
said that the summoning order was passed in a casual manner or without any
material. The order discusses the oral and documentary evidence and the
legal position, and reflects due application of mind.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged this Court to look
into the material relied upon by the petitioner and quash the proceedings on
that basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan
Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 has laid down the parameters within which
the High Court may consider the material produced by an accused at the pre-
trial stage. It was held that this is not a stage for evaluating the truthfulness of
the allegations. The material relied upon by the accused must be of sterling
and impeccable quality, which cannot be justifiably refuted by the
complainant. The relevant observations are as under:
"21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful
choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness
or otherwise of allegations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant against the accused.
Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty
the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 14
the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or
doubt, in the allegations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to
discharge the accused before trial. ....
*
23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by
an accused by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such,
that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 15
such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in
it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ...."
23. The view taken in Rajiv Thapar's case (supra) is not in conflict
with the principle laid down in Smt. Nagawwa's case (supra) . The High
Court may look at the material of the accused only when it is so
unimpeachable that it demolishes the accusation without any trial. Where the
material is disputed, the general rule stated in Smt. Nagawwa's case (supra)
continues to apply. When tested on these parameters, the material relied upon
by the petitioner does not meet the requirement. The enquiry reports are only
the opinions of police officers formed on statements recorded by them, and
their fairness has been questioned by the respondent. The statement Annexure
P-1 has been explained by the respondent and is contrary to his sworn
statement and to the statements of the other witnesses. This material has been
seriously refuted and cannot be described as indubitable. It is also significant
that in Rajiv Thapar's case (supra) , the postmortem report and the report of
the Central Forensic Science Laboratory showed that the death had not been
caused by poisoning at all, and so the very foundation of the complaint stood
demolished. In the present case, it is the admitted case of both sides that the
deceased died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning. The only question is
whether he consumed it himself or it was administered to him by the
petitioner. That question cannot be answered without evidence.
24. It has also been argued that the complaint is motivated by greed
for the service benefits of the deceased. On the other hand, the respondent has
referred to the remarriage of the petitioner and to her appointment as an
Anganwari worker (Annexure R-4). Neither aspect has any direct bearing on
the question involved in this petition. The plea of motive is a matter of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 16
defence, which the petitioner may raise during trial. The civil litigation
regarding the post of Anganwari worker is wholly unrelated to the allegation
of murder, and this Court has not taken it into account against the petitioner.
25. As regards the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondent, the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) have
already been applied above. The remaining judgments were rendered in
appeals arising out of convictions, after appreciation of the evidence led
during full trials. They have been cited to show that offences committed
inside a house are often committed in secrecy and that the conduct of the
inmates becomes relevant in such cases. This Court has not found it
necessary to rest its decision upon them, as the present matter is at the
threshold and the evidence is yet to be appreciated by the trial Court.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in pointing out that the
observation of the learned Revisional Court, about the inquiry still going on,
is not correct. All the three enquiries had been concluded much before the
complaint was decided. However, the conclusion of the learned Revisional
Court is not based on this observation alone. It noticed the DDR, the
enquiries and the preliminary evidence, and rightly held that the merits were
not to be gone into at that stage. The erroneous observation, therefore, does
not vitiate the order. It is also to be kept in mind that the petitioner had
already availed the remedy of revision before the Court of Session. A second
revision by the same party is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Though the
inherent power of this Court remains available, it is to be exercised sparingly
in such a situation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnan and another v.
Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 SCC 241 held as under:
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 17
" Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section
397 (3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant
cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to
the High Court under Section 397 (1) or under
inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of
the provisions of Section 397 (3) or Section 397 (2) of
the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu
power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory
jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the
High Court on examination of the record finds that there is
grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the
courts or the required statutory procedure has not been
complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed
or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction,
it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at
the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would
ensue. ... As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly
so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure,
unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of
proceedings. ..."
27. No grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the
Court has been shown in the present case, which would justify interference
with the concurrent view of the Courts concerned. The petitioner is not
without remedy. After her appearance, the case will have to be committed to
the Court of Session under Section 209 Cr.P.C. At the stage of considering
the charge under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court of Session will
examine the record of the case and hear both sides. The petitioner will be at
liberty to raise all her pleas at that stage, including those based on Annexure
P-1 and the enquiry reports. As the complaint was instituted in the year 2010,
the proceedings shall continue to be governed by the Code of Criminal
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23464-2014 (O&M) 18
Procedure, 1973 in view of Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality or
perversity in the order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) or in the order dated
23.05.2014 (Annexure P-9). The complaint discloses the commission of an
offence and is supported by preliminary evidence. The disputed questions
raised by the petitioner can only be decided during trial. Consequently, the
present petition is dismissed . The interim order dated 16.07.2014 stands
vacated. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court
within a period of 30 days from today. As the complaint has remained
pending since the year 2010, the learned trial Court is requested to proceed
with the matter expeditiously.
29. It is clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned
trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made in
this judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
31.10.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document