MOHD. BABLU & ORS. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of order: 7th February, 2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 1994/2022
MOHD. BABLU & ORS. ….Petitioners
Through: Mr. Akshya Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Rishabh Kumar, Mr.Krishan Bhardwaj, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Alok Sharma, Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocate with SI Mohit Kumar and SI Charu, PS Maidan Garhi, Delhi
Mr. Yogender Dagar, Advocate with complainant in person

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [earlier under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Code”)] has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR bearing no. 311/2022 registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 328/330/354/354-B/355/348/109/323/341/506/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and the emanating proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the impugned FIR, are that the respondent no. 2/complainant was working as a maid in petitioner no. 3’s house for about 2 years. It is stated that a theft took place in the petitioner no. 3’s house, wherein certain gold articles were stolen. However, the petitioner no. 3 had her doubts reserved on the servants working in her house. It was stated that in order to find the perpetrator, on 9th August, 2022, the petitioner no. 3 invited an occultist who performed an act of keeping rice and chuna in everybody’s mouth to see whether the mouth turned red to determine the thief.
3. It is stated that when the complainant was put through this test, her mouth turned red and the occultist declared her as a thief. It is stated that pursuantly, the complainant was forcibly taken to a room by the petitioners herein and they physically assaulted her to confess to the theft. It is further stated that upset with the behaviour of the petitioners, the complainant consumed rat-killing medicine, leading to vomiting and stomach ache. Upon informing the other servants about her condition, the complainant was admitted to the hospital where her statement was recorded by the investigating authority. Accordingly, the instant FIR was registered by the investigating authority.
4. Thereafter, on 15th August, 2022, the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Code was recorded before the Court concerned stating that on 9th August, 2022, she consumed the rat poison because she quarrelled with her husband and that he left her behind.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating authority filed the chargesheet dated 2nd March, 2023 against the petitioners under Section 173 of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, a discharge application was filed before the Court concerned and vide order dated 10th October, 2023, the Court concerned disposed of the said application, wherein it observed that the correctness of the complainant’s statement can be made out only at the stage of trial.
6. Accordingly, the trial in the instant case commenced and the complainant was testified before the Court concerned.
7. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the consequent proceedings therein, the petitioners filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the same.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the respondent no. 1 has falsely implicated the petitioners and filed a fabricated and concocted FIR against them.
9. It is submitted that the complainant has categorically stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code that she consumed the rat poison only due to the quarrel with her husband and has not mentioned anything against the petitioners, as recorded in the FIR. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent no. 1 lodged an FIR on false and fabricated facts. There are several contradictions in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code.
10. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for.
11. Per contra, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State/respondent no. 1 vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners which warrant proper trial.
12. It is submitted that the contents made in the FIR are not in consonance with the statement made by the complainant under Section 164 of the Code and her affidavit, which clearly indicates that the complainant was influenced by the petitioners, thereby, resulting in giving contradictory statements pursuant to the filing of the FIR.
13. It is further submitted that given that serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and the dissimilar contents of the requisite material on record i.e., the FIR, statement under Section 164 of the Code and the complainant’s affidavit, the instant matter requires trial to unearth the veracity of the matter.
14. In light of the aforementioned submissions, it is prayed that the instant matter, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the powers envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 of the Code) are wide in nature and hence, the same must be used sparingly, carefully and in exigent cases. When Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked, an appropriate writ can be issued to any person or authority and when there is a violation of fundamental/legal rights or for any other purpose.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, also observed that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits, however, with more power, due care and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers.
18. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 had registered a false and fabricated FIR, only with an intent to harass the petitioners and the same can be ascertained by the statements made by the complainant under Section 164 of the Code and her affidavit. Therefore, the FIR and the consequent proceedings therein are liable to be quashed.
19. However, in rival submissions, it is the case of the respondent no. 1 that the subsequent statements given by the complainant are contradictory to her initial statement given for the registration of the FIR only due to the petitioners’ undue influence and the veracity of the same can be unearthed only at the stage of trial.
20. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether there exists any discrepancy in the statements made by the complainant, it is apposite for this Court to examine the contents of the FIR, statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, contents of the chargesheet, affidavit dated 18th August, 2022 and the testimony of the complainant during examination.
21. For the purpose of convenience, the relevant portion of the FIR is reproduced hereinunder:
“Statement of Smt Shiv Pyari W/0 Sh. Ranjit Ravi Age 43 years RIO Present add. E-25/ A, Anasal Villa, Satbari, New Delhi, Permanent add. Village Bailwa PS Haidargarh Kotwali, Barabanki Rai Barcli Uttar Pradesh Mb. No. 9871325835, stated that the family lives at the above address, it works as a maid at the above address, my husband works as a guard at the above address, I am working for the last two years, about 10 months ago there was a theft in the kothi in which my mistress Gulrej’s some gold jewelry was stolen. Mistress had doubt on servants working in house that they would have stolen. Yesterday on 9.08.2022 around 3 PM, my mistress had called a occultist and he said that he would keep rice and chuna inside everyone’s mouth, in whose mouth the rice and chuna would turn red, that person will be the thie£ My mouth turned red from inside when I picked ricechuna and kept rice-chuna in my mouth, then Tatrik said that I am the thief, after this the mistress took me to the children’s room, she tied my hands and feet with a rope, both the mistress and her mother kept pressurizing me to accept the charge of stealing forcibly and left me at around 11 o’clock in the night, leaving my hands and feet tied, around 6 o’clock in the morning, the mistress Gulrej, owner Bablu, mistress’s mother and sister-in-law, came in the room, the mistress and her mother took off all my clothes, they all started hitting me with rolling, slippers, shoes and kicks. To avoid their beating, I confessed that I had stolen and told them that I had kept the stolen goods in my box in the village. The owner sent my husband home to get the stolen goods, after that T said that I have to go to the toilet, then he gave me my clothes back, after getting me the toilet, they all took me to my room, they searched my room At the time of searching my room, I got the medicine to kill rats, being upset by the torture and torture of the mistress, her mother, owner and sisterin- law, after finding no way, ate this rat-killing medicine. I thought death is better than such a burning life, after that I started vomiting and stomach ache, so they left me on grass in sun while I was tied, when I started vomiting more, I told the other servants of the house that I had eaten medicine of killing rats. Then all of them brought me to Cornus Hospital, I took this step after getting upset with my mistress, owner, mistress’s mother and sister-in-law. you are requested to take strictest legal action against all of them, you wrote my statement which you heard okay RTI of Ram Pyari……….”

22. The relevant extracts of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code is as follows:

The relevant extracts of the affidavit of complainant dated 18th August, 2022 filed before the Court concerned are as follows:
“3. I am getting Rs. 15,000/- as a monthly salary for cooking and household chores. Mr. Bablu has given residential accommodation to all of his staff including me, Dhirendra, and Kishore. Sh. Dhirendra Kumar Ram alongwith his wife Manju also resides adjacent to my room. Dhirendra works as driver. Kishore is also reside next to Dhirendra 15 ft away from my room.
4. On 9.8.2022 around 9 PM, a quarrel started between me and my husband over smoking Bidi in the room resulted into burning of my suit which quarrel continues one after other issues. We had scuffle in night. In morning of 10.8.2022, My husband was in angry mood, took our savings and said that “he is going to settle in village, will not come back to me.” Later on he really went to village after leaving me and my son Aman in Delhi. I felt very sorrowful and disheartening. I waited and cried for him. I was, blind and out of state and mind, in such a situation, I have eaten rat poison in afternoon of 10.8.2022, when I was alone my room immediately I started vomiting, suffocated an feeling unwell. Manju and Kishore were in next room, immediately, they came into my room. I informed Manju and Kishore about rat poison. Both taken me to hospital where I was partially unconscious for some time, Police Officials taken my thumb impression on some blank pages. I have said the above stated facts to police in the hospital as well. I recovered after 2-3 hours, came to full conscious, I saw blue ink on right thumb. In evening of 10.8.2022, I was discharged from the hospital and came to my room at E-25A, Ansal Villas, Satbari.
5. Police Officials never told or provided any copy of FIR to me, even till 15.8.2022, I had no knowledge that a FIR has been registered. Police van came to my house i.e. E-25A, Ansal Villas and picked me to Police Station again taken thumb impression on blank pages.
6. I have never given any statement to police regarding gold theft, Tantrik, Rice-Chuna, stripping to me, beatings by Mr. Bablu, Ms. Gulrej begum, or by any other persons on 9/10.08.2022. Police Officials has misused my thumb impression for making false and fabricated story of Tantrik, Stripping, Gold theft, beatings, giving poison as alleged in FIR
No.311. Contents of FIR are totally false and has no real facts.
7. After recording of my statement in Saket Court before Ld. Judge on 15.08.2022, against on 16.8. 2022, 4-5 Police officials came to my house at E-25 A, Ansal Villas, they were in very angry mood, and threatened me to teach a lesson. Even Police Officials have reprimanded my husband very badly and said that “Jaisa hum bole, vaisa hi bolo aur vaisa hi karo, nahi to tumhe chodenge nahi.
8.Again on 17.8.2022, Police officials came to my doorstep starts misbehaving with my husband and asked him to take me to Police Station. We are very fered by Police Officials.
9. Presently, I am residing and living happily with my free will and choice at E-25 A ansal Villas, Satbari, Delhi with my husband and child. However, Police Officials are in habit of harassing me as well as others on daily basis.”

The testimony of the complainant during the examination dated 3rd May, 2024 is states as under:
“I am illiterate. 1 can not read and write hindi as well as English. I can only make Thumb impression. “Main hindi mai apna byan de sakti hu, aap use angrzi mai badal dena aur muje baad mai par kar bta dena”.
On 09-10 of month of August, however, I do not remcmber the ycar and the time of the incident. My husband was consuming bidi, I was denying him and at that time when I asked him not to consume bidi, he put the same on my clothes “mere kapre jala diye” My husband slapped me 2 3 umes in anger on my cheek and body parts. He told me that he is going Out of the house, thereafter, he went at village at his native place. I was in anger and I consumed one of the medicine which was kept at mny home hum parey likhey nahi hai, pta nahi konsi dawai kha, jo bhi rakhi thÉ kha I. After one hour of consuming the medicine, I started vomiting “aur mai khabra gyi”. My son who was 5-6 years old, he went outside and called 4-5 boys from the gali and those persons took me to the hospital, they were our neighbors. however, I do not remember their names. When I reached at hospital, police oficials also arrived at the hospital. I do not know who has made a cal] to the police. At that time, I was unconscious. I am not aware what was written on my complaint by the police and I do not know what is the present complaint for which I am deposing today.
At this stage, one complaint/ statemet written in Hindi available in judicial file is read over to the witness nd ak to identify the contents and thumb impression on the same. The witness reply that the thumb impression on the complaint/ statement were taken by the police when she was unconscious, however, the contents of the said complaint/ statement are denied by the witness to be deposed before the police.
At this State, Ld. APP or the statc secks the permission of the court to cross examine the witness as she did not disclose the facts stated by her in her complaint / statement written by the police and attached with the judicial fle. Heard and Allowed.
XXX by Ld. APP for State.
The complaint Ex.A-1 is read over to the witness. It is Wrong to Suggest that four months prior to the present complaint, there was a theft in the house / kothi wherein the jewelery of the house owner namely Gulrej were stolen. It is wrong to suggest that the ovwner Gulrej has a suspicion that the servants of the house had stolen the aforesaid jewelery of the OWner. It is wrong to suggest that on 09.08.2022, at about 03:00 p.m. the oWner called one Tantrik who put rice and chuna into the mouth of all the servants and said if the colour of the same will turn red, the person will be declared thief. It is wrong to suggest that the rice and chuna were put into my mouth and the colour turned into red, I was declaref the thief who had stolen the jewelery of he owner. It is wrong to suggest that the owner and her mother took me inside the children’s room and tied m hands and feet with the rope. It is wrong to suggest that both owner and her mother forccd me to accept that I had stolen the jewelers articles. It is wrong to sugLest hat at about l1:00 p. m. my hand and fects were ticd by owner and hcr mother and they left me inside the room. It is wrong to suggest that in the morning at about 06:00 a.m. the owner Gulrei, Babloo and the mother and Bhabhi of the owner came inside the room and started giving bcatings lo me with slippers, shoes and also gave leg blows to me. It is wrong to suggest that to save mysclf from the beatings of accused persons, 1 accepted all the allegations of theft forced upon me. It is wrong to suggest that 1 informed all the abovementioned persons that the stolen articles were ly ing in the cartoon / sindook in my village. It is wrong to suggest that the oWner sent my husband at village to bring all the stolen articles. It is wrong to suggest that my clothes were removed by all the abovementioned accused persons when they locked me inside the room and at the time, When they gave beatings to me. It is wrong to suggest that I requested all the accused persons to hand over my clothes to me as I wanted to go washroom. It is wrong to suggest that my clothes were returned to me and thereafer when I returned back from the washroom, all the accused persons Look me alongwith them to my room to check/ search regarding the articles which were informed by them to be stolen. It is wrong to suggest that all the accused persons started searching my room and at that time, I have seen the rat killer medicine lying inside my room and thereafter, I consumed the same as there was no other way to get rid from the beatings and the insults which were being given to me by accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I consumed the rat killer poison to kill myself as I ourd not Tind any other way better Suggest than to kill myself. I is wrong to that therealler started vomiting and getting pain in my stomach, however, all the accused persons tied me with the rope and lell me on the grass outside the house under the sun, It is wrong to suggest that when I started continuous vomiine then I informed other servants of the house regarding the consuming of rat killer poison by me. It is wrong to suggest that the servants of the house took me to the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I filed the present complaint against the owner, his wife and their mother and bhabhi as l was very much disturbed with the violence which was caused upon me by all of the accused persons.
I did not even show the place of incident to the police or even I did not put my thumb impression on any document pertaining to the place of incident. The site plan is shown to the witness where her thumb impression were put by her in presence of police during investigation.
It is wrong to suggest that I put my thumb impression on the site plan prepared by police. It is correct that my medical examination was conducted. I did not even put my thumb impression on any document / seizure memo after handing over the bottle of rat poison to the police.
It is wrong to suggest that I put any thumb impression on the seizure memo. I did not put my thumb impression on the seizure memo of the case property, rope after the police seized the same. It is wrong to suggest that I put my thumb impression on the seizure memo of the rope.
It is correct that I made any statement before Ld. MM in Saket Court.
At this stage, the statement ws 164 Cr.PC of the complainant/ victim without any seal but stapled and taped with the signatures of Ld. MM Ms. Chhavi Bansal on the tape in white colour cnvelopc is opened in the Court. The statement u/s 164 Cr.PC is taken ot from the envelope and is shown and read over to the witness. Witness is ask to identify her thumb impression on the same. The witness has corectly identificd the contents of her statement and her thumb impression on the same. The statemnent u/s 164 Cr.PC is Ex. PW-1 /B bearing the thumb impression of witness at point A on each page. The statement is attached with the envelope and kept in the court file.
AT accused persons are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness).
XXX by Sh. Akshya Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Bablu, Gulrej Begam, Mujesa and Seema Khatoon
I have no grievances of any kind from accused persons namely accused Mohd. Bablu, Gulrej Begum, Mujesa and Seema Khatoon.
No offence was ever committed upon me by accused Mohd. Bablu, Gulrej Begum, Mujesa and Seema Khatoon.
Today, I have o pressure of any kind from any of accused person.
XXX by Sh. Vinay Kumar Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused Rajit Ram.
My dispute with my husband is now resolved. He is now taking good care of me.”

23. This Court has meticulously perused the contents of the aforesaid material.
24. It is observed by this Court that in the FIR, it is descriptively stated that the complainant was subjected to physical assault and wrongful confinement due to an alleged confession given regarding a theft, thereby, leading to the consumption of poison.
25. However, upon perusal of the chargesheet, statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code, affidavit dated 18th August, 2022 and the testimony of the complainant during the examination, it can be seen that the complainant repeatedly took a different stance, at different stages of trial before the learned Court below, wherein, she has stated on oath that she quarrelled with her husband and with the fear of being left back by her husband, the complainant consumed poison.
26. It is an admitted fact that there is discrepancy in the contents of the aforesaid material. The said discrepancies are apparent on the face of it and therefore, a question arises as to whether the FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the instant case.
27. In light of the peculiar facts of the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the parameters for quashing of the FIR, which are relevant to discuss in the instant case. The relevant extracts of the same are as follows –
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
28. The aforementioned parameters are not exhaustive in nature, however, it implies that this Court can exercise its inherent powers depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
29. It is also pertinent to mention that the contention of the respondent no. 1 is that the petitioners have influenced the complainant and therefore, she turned hostile. In this regard, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in V.P. Singh @ Vijender Pal Singh vs. State and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 972, wherein, the FIR was quashed, by observing that the mere fact of the complainant turning hostile will not waive off the allegations made by the complainant against the accused.
30. In the instant case, the contents of the FIR reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature, wherein the complainant has made allegations against the petitioners with regard to the wrongful confinement, physical assault, outraging the modesty of women etc.
31. However, this Court finds that the subsequent statements made by the complainant i.e., statement under Section 164 of the Code, affidavit dated 18th August, 2022 and the testimony of the complainant before the Court concerned; does not reveal any allegation made against the petitioners which are in consonance to the allegations made in the FIR initially, thereby, taking a completely different stance from the contents of the FIR and the same is apparent from the bare perusal of the material available on record.
32. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to examine the order dated 10th October, 2023, passed in the discharge application, , wherein, it was observed by the learned Court below that the correctness of the complainant’s version of events/incident can be ascertained only at the stage of trial. The relevant portion of the same is as follows –
“12. There is no other material on record to show that the substance allegedly consumed by complainant was poisonous. In these circumstances, no prima facie case for the offence u/s 328 IPC is made out against accused persons. They are hereby discharged for said offence.
13. Rest of the offences are triable by Magistrate. There are clear allegations against accused Gulrez Begum and Mujesa Khatoon regarding them having wrongfully confined the complainant to extort confession in the night of 09.08.2022 in furtherance of their common intention. There are also specific allegations against accused Seema Khatoon, Mohd. Bablu, Gulrez Begum and Mujesa Khatoon regarding them having disrobed the complainant ad voluntarily causing hurt to her to extort confession alongwith using criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty and to dishonor her in furtherance ·of their common intention. Accordingly, a prima facie case for commission of offences u/s 348/330/354/355/34 IPC and Section 354B IPC r/w Section 109 IPC is made out against accused Gulrez Begam and Mujesa Khatoon. Similarly, a prima facie case for commission of offences u/s 330/354/355/34 IPC and Section 354B IPC r/w Section 109 IPC is made out against accused Seema Khatoon. A prima facie case for commission of offences u/s 330/354/3548/355/34 IPC is made out against accused Mohd. Bablu.
14. As far as, accused Rajit Ram is concerned, no allegations were leveled against him in the initial statement dated 1 0. 08.2022 of complainant. The only allegation on record against him came in the statement of complainant u/s I 64 Cr.P.C. recorded before Ld. Magistrate as per which he had beaten her on 10.08.2022 at unknown time (she has not specifically mentioned the date, however same can be inferred from her remaining statement). Whether the version of complainant as mentioned in her initial complaint dated 10.08.2022 is correct or the version which came in her subsequent statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. dated 15.08.2022, can be ascertained during trial only. Considering the same, a prima facie case for the offence u/s 3 23 IPC is made out against him.”

33. Given the multiple stance taken by the complainant at different stages of trial before the learned Court below and the observations made in order dated 10th October, 2023 by virtue of which the discharge application was adjudicated, this Court does not find it appropriate, at this stage, to ascertain the veracity and correctness of the factual version of the events that led to the registration of the FIR, and the same can only be unearthed and determined at the stage of trial which would include the leading of evidence, examination of witnesses and arguments
34. Therefore, taking into the consideration the observations made herein above, the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR, coupled with the dissimilar statements made by the complainant in the aforesaid material and the case-laws mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the instant case is not a fit case to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 of the Code) and in view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in allowing the instant petition.
35. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed along with pending applications, if any.
36. It is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Court concerned shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 7, 2025
Rt/mk/ryp Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(CRL) 1994/2022 Page 19 of 19