Delhi District Court
Balwant Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its ... on 11 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Neha, DHJS
CNR No. DLND01-009600-2024
CR No. 650/2024
In the matter of:-
Balwant Singh
(currently posted at Anti-Narcotics
squad, District South-East, New Delhi) ...Revisionist
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Yadav
R/o H. No. 186, G. Floor, Arjun
Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi
Through its Station House Officer,
Police Station Vasant Kunj North, ...Respondent
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2024
Date of judgment : 11.11.2025
(The case is taken up by this Court in view of Circular No. 40/
D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 17.10.2025 whereby Hon'ble High
Court has directed that the judicial officers under transfer shall
pronounce judgments / orders in all such matters on the date
fixed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof, notwith-
standing the posting / transfer).
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide Criminal Revision filed by revisionist-accused challenging impugned order dated CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 1 of 15 18.10.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts, whereby delay in filing of charge-sheet was condoned and cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 323/506/34 IPC in FIR No. 35/2018, P.S. Vasant Kunj North.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present revision are that complainant, Anuj Suhag, filed a complaint on 06.05.2016 before Commissioner, DCP and NHRC stating that he got married to Seenu Sehrawat on 22.04.2015. Post marriage differences developed between them. In the end of June 2015, Seenu inforemed that she was pregnant. She left for her parental house on 19.07.2015. Seenu started misbehaving with the parents of the complainant and threatened to commit suicide. The complainant called Seenu's brother to take her back but he did not agree. At 7:45 PM, the complainant registered complaint against his wife at PS Vasant Kunj North. His complaint was ignored and ASI Hukum Singh said that he had many other cases to solve and he would come when he had time. The complainant returned home. At about 12:30 AM, Seenu decided to leave and to go back to her mother's house. The complainant told her that he would drop her. The complainant's sister went to drop Seenu to her parents house and the complainant went to PS to inform that he has amicably resolved the matter. When he reached PS, he was shocked to learn that a counter complaint was filed by Seenu's brother. ASI Hukum Singh started abusing the complainant. At about 4:00 AM, complainant was arrested on the complaint of his wife and he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination. On return from hospital he was beaten by ASI Hukum Singh and Constable Balwant when he refused to write that he had assaulted CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 2 of 15 his wife and child. He was mercilessly beaten. He was produced before SEM Vasant Vihar and he was unlawfully sent to judicial custody till 16.04.2016. After release in the evening of 16.04.2016, the complainant got his medical examination done at Safdarjung Hospital. Subsequently, he had come to know that Seenu had lodged false complaint of dowry on 19.04.2016. The complainant had given complaint on 06.05.2016 regarding the incident but the police did not register FIR. Thereafter, the complainant had filed application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for ordering investigation in the complaint dated 06.05.2016 and for registration of FIR. In the said application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC, allegations were made against ASI Hukum Singh, Balwant (revisionist-accused herein), one unknown Constable, Seenu Suhag and her family members. Ld. MM dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC moved by the complainant and the complainant filed criminal revision before Ld. ASJ, New Delhi District. Vide order dated 03.01.2018, the criminal revision filed by the complainant was allowed and the SHO PS Vasant Kunj North was directed to register an FIR. Thereafter, FIR no. 35/2018 dated 18.01.2018 u/s 323/348/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj (North) on the complaint of complainant Anuj Suhag. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 323/506/34 IPC against Vikram and Deepak and charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 323/34 IPC against ASI Hukum Singh and revisionist-accused Balwant Singh. Charge- sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. MM on 25.09.2023 and an application for condonation of delay was filed by the IO. Notice was issued to the complainant and the accused persons. After CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 3 of 15 hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 18.10.2024, the delay was condoned and cognizance of offence was taken and the revisionist-accused and co-accused persons including ASI Hukum Singh were summoned to face trial. Hence, the revisionist has filed present revision impugning order dated 18.10.2024.
3. Notice of the revision was issued to the complainant and complainant has filed brief written submissions opposing the petition of the revisionist-accused.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist-accused would argue that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the full facts and passed the said impugned order and the material facts have been ignored by the court below. It is a clear-cut case of family dispute between Anuj Suhag and his wife. Anuj Suhag was arrested in Kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC by ASI Hukum Singh. Seenu had filed a complaint against Anuj Suhag and his family members and her MLC No. 77797 was prepared at Safdarjung Hospital on 15.04.2016 at 2:15 AM. After arrest of Anuj Suhag, the revisionist took Anuj Suhag for his MLC and MLC No. 77839 of Anuj Suhag was prepared at Safdarjung Hospital on 15.04.2016 at 4:25 AM wherein no fresh injury were seen on his body. Anuj Suhag had also not stated anything against the revisionist in front of the concerned medical professionals/ staff. After medical examination, the revisionist took Anuj Suhag to the concerned police station. The revisionist was on emergency duty on that day and after his duty hours, he had left his post. Later, Anuj Suhag was taken before the Ld. Special Executive Magistrate and CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 4 of 15 before SEM also, he had also not alleged the said incidents. When Anuj Suhag was again examined by the concerned doctor at Safdarjung Hospital on 15.04.2016 at about 4:55 PM, he again had not alleged anything against the revisionist-accused. No grave suspicion is made out against the revisionist.
5. It is further argued on behalf of the revisionist that Ld. JMFC-02 failed to appreciate that the revisionist has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC for which the maximum prescribed punishment is one year imprisonment. The instant F.I.R. was registered 18.01.2018 and the prescribed period for taking cognizance expired on 18.01.2019. The police had signed chargesheet on 18.09.2023. Ld. JMFC-02 took the cognizance vide impugned order dated 18.10.2024 i.e. after the expiry of the stipulated period of one year. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and if the impugned order is not set aside, the revisionist will be forced to face the agony of the long trial. From the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 1 SCC 721, it is settled that cognizance of any offence cannot be taken after the period of expiry of limitation. Further even after taking the prosecution story as gospel truth, the evidence collected and documents produced in the charge sheet failed to raise even grave suspicion against the revisionist. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order may be set aside and the revisionist-accused may be discharged in the case.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant, would argue that the CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 5 of 15 marriage of the complainant and Sheenu (wife of complainant) was solemnized on 22.04.2015. Sheenu stayed at her parents house from 19.07.2015 till 14.04.2016. On 14.04.2016, Sheenu came to the complainant's house with the baby and threatened that she would commit suicide and harm the child. Due to ruckus, the complainant was compelled to go to PS Vasant Kunj North and he reported the matter at about 7:45 PM. On 15.04.2016 at 12:30 AM, Sheenu decided to leave and she went to her parent's house. At about 1:00 AM on 15.04.2016, Sheenu went to PS. When the complainant reached the PS, he came to know that complaint was lodged by his brother-in-law as counter blast to the complaint lodged by him (complainant). At about 4:00 AM when the complainant and his father were at the PS, they were informed that the complainant was being arrested and he was sent for MLC. At about 4:24 AM on 15.04.2016, the complainant reached Safdarjung Hospital for MLC. At about 5:30 AM, accused Balwant Singh put him in lock-up at PS Vasant Kunj (North). Thereafter complainant was taken to a room on the second floor where Sheenu's brother Sunny and Cousin Vikram were already present. Thereafter, the complainant was assaulted and tortured by accused Balwant Singh, ASI Hukum Singh and family members of Seenu. The complainant was also forced to sign statements that he had assaulted his wife and child. He was produced in the Court of Ld. Executive Magistrate on 15.04.2016 and Kalandra was submitted. The complainant was again taken to Safdarjung Hospital for another MLC and this MLC was different from the one prepared at 4:25 AM which proves that the complainant was assaulted in the Police Station. On 16.04.2016, CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 6 of 15 complainant was granted bail and he was released from Tihar Jail at about 9-9:30 PM. After his release, he got his MLC conducted around 10:30 PM which confirmed head injuries and assault. The complainant had filed complaint with Commissioner of Police, DCP on 06.05.2016 regarding alleged incidents and assault by Police officials. The complainant also filed petition before Hon'ble High Court seeking quashing of the Kalandra and investigation against erring police officials. On 14.10.2016, SDM dropped the Kalandra proceedings. Irregularities were noticed in the Kalandra and accused Balwant Singh as well as co-accused ASI Hukum Singh were suspended and a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against them. Complainant filed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC and in the revision, Ld. ASJ has directed SHO PS Vasant Kunj (North) to register a FIR and the present FIR was registered against accused Balwant Singh, ASI Hukum Singh, Vikram and Deepak. The charge-sheet was submitted on 19.09.2023 after investigation and Ld. JMFC-02 condoned the delay in filing charge-sheet and took cognizance of offence. The revision petition has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions of the counsels and perused the record. TCR also perused.
8. Ld. JMFC-02, vide impugned order dated 18.10.2024 condoned the delay in filing the charge-sheet and cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 323/506/34 IPC.
9. The impugned order dated 18.10.2024 was challenged by revisionist-accused Balwant Singh and also by co-accused ASI CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 7 of 15 Hukum Singh. ASI Hukum Singh filed a separate revision petition bearing no. 174/2025 which was pending before the Court of Ld. ASJ-05, PHC. Two different revisions against same order were assigned to two different courts and revision filed by ASI Hukum Singh was dismissed by Ld. ASJ-05 vide order dated 09.07.2025. The revision of accused Balwant Singh is pending in this Court.
10. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist-accused has submitted that the allegations qua the accused-revisionist is different from the allegations made against co-accused ASI Hukum Singh and therefore this Court may not consider the order passed by Ld. ASJ-05, Patiala House Court in criminal revision filed by co- accused ASI Hukum Singh.
11. It is settled that one Court should not be influenced by judgment of another Court having same jurisdiction. Judgment of one Court is not be read mechanically. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts and additional facts will make a lot of difference in the precedential value of the decision. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases. (Reliance is placed upon the judgments passed in the matter of Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P (Crl) no. 77/2008, Bharat Petrolieum Ltd. Vs. N.R.Vairamani and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4778.)
12. It is clarified to the parties that this Court is deciding the present revision being uninfluenced by the order of dismissal passed by Ld. ASJ-05, Patiala House Court in criminal revision CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 8 of 15 filed by co-accused ASI Hukum Singh against impugned order dated 18.10.2024.
13. The revisionist-accused has challenged the impugned order on three grounds:- (1) cognizance has been taken after expiry of period of limitation; (2) no sanction was taken for prosecution of the accused as the alleged act was done by the accused during course of his official duty and; (3) material is not sufficient to raise grave suspicion against the revisionist-accused.
14. First ground on which the revisionist-accused has challenged the impugned order is that cognizance taken on 18.10.2024 for offence under Sections 323 IPC is barred by limitation, as the FIR was registered on 18.01.2024 and the charge-sheet was filed on 19.09.2023 beyond one-year period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC.
15. In the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 1 SCC 721, the question for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation u/s 468 Cr.PC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? Hon'ble Apex Court, after discussing the relevant provision and the precedents held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC, the relevant date is the date of filing of date of complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 9 of 15
16. In the case of Arun Vyas & Anr. v. Anita Vyas, (1999) 4 SCC 690, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under
"10. It may be noted here that the object of having Chapter XXXVI in Cr.P.C. is to protect persons from prosecution based on stale grievances and complaints which may turn out to be vexatious. The reason for engrafting rule of limitation is that due to long lapse of time necessary evidence will be lost and persons prosecuted will be placed in a defenseless position. It will cause great mental anguish and hardship to them and may even result in miscarriage of justice. At the same time it is necessary to ensure that due to delays on the part of the investigating and prosecuting agencies and the application of rules of limitation the criminal justice system is not rendered toothless and ineffective and perpetrators of crime are not placed in advantageous position. The Parliament obviously taking note of various aspects, classified offences into two categories, having regard to the gravity of offences, on the basis of the punishment prescribed for them. Grave offences for which punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term exceeding three years are not brought within the ambit of Chapter XXXVI. The period of limitation is prescribed only for offences for which punishment specified is imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and even in such cases wide discretion is given to the Court in the matter of taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. Section 473 provides that if any Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, it may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. This section opens with a non obstante clause and gives overriding effect to it over all the other provisions of Chapter XXXVI.
xxxxxx
14. It may be noted here that Section 473 Cr.P.C. which extends the period of limitation is in two parts. The first part contains non obstante clause and gives overriding effect to that section over Sections 468 to 472. The second part has two limbs. The first limb confers power on every competent court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and the second limb empowers such a court to take cognizance of an offence if it is satisfied on the facts and in CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 10 of 15 the circumstances of the case that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. It is true that the expression `in the interest of justice' in Section 473 cannot be interpreted to mean in the interest of prosecution. What the Court has to see is `interest of justice'. The interest of justice demands that the Court should protect the oppressed and punish the oppressor/offender. In complaints under Section 498-A the wife will invariably be oppressed, having been subjected to cruelty by the husband and the in-laws. It is, therefore, appropriate for the Courts, in case of delayed complaints, to construe liberally Section 473 Cr.P.C.in favour of a wife who is subjected to cruelty if on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. When the conduct of the accused is such that applying rule of limitation will give an unfair advantage to him or result in miscarriage of justice, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation in the interests of justice. This is only illustrative not exhaustive."
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically held that it is necessary to ensure that due to delay on the part of investigating agencies, criminal justice system is not rendered toothless and ineffective and the perpetrators of the crime are not placed in an advantageous position.
18. Section 473 CrPC confers power on the Court to take cognizance after expiry of period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Power has been conferred on the Court to extend period of limitation where a proper and satisfactory explanation for the delay is available.
19. In the present case, the Trial Court record would show that after filing of charge-sheet and before condoning the delay, the reply was called from all concerned IOs of the case and after considering the reply, and after hearing the accused and the CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 11 of 15 complainant, the delay was condoned. The reply of IOs would suggest that considerable time was taken by them for discussion regarding obtaining sanction u/s. 197 CrPC and 140 Delhi Police Act, some IOs remained on leave for sometime and thereafter due to lockdown, other law and order arrangement duties, charge-sheet was not filed within time. The reply of the IOs make it clear that the delay in filing the charge-sheet was due to lack of diligence/negligence of the IOs. None of the IOs in their reply have averred that complainant Anuj Suhag did not co-operate in the investigation and therefore, charge-sheet could not filed within time. The IOs have furnished sufficient reason for not filing of charge-sheet within period of limitation. Further section 473 CrPC also provides that if there is sufficient reason and interest of justice warranted, delay may be condoned. In the case also, the complainant should not punished for no fault of his and declining cognizance on ground of delay would be injustice to the complainant as he had taken steps for appropriate action against the accused persons at the earliest possible opportunity and therefore, he can not be made to suffer for no fault of his. The trial court has rightly observed that the delay was not on the part of the complainant and the complainant cannot be made to pay the price of decline of cognizance for the delay done by the investigating agency. The trial court has rightly exercised the discretion under Section 473 CrPC by extending the period of limitation.
20. Second argument of revisionist-accused is that sanction u/s. 197 CrPC or u/s. 140 Delhi Police Act was not obtained. As per allegations of complainant Anuj Suhag, when he was taken to CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 12 of 15 PS after his first medical examination at 4:25 AM, he was taken to one room where he was mercilessly beaten by revisionist- accused Balwant Singh, ASI Hukum Singh and others and he was forced to sign on certain statements. The question is whether alleged act of beating an accused in police custody and forcing him to sign statements can be said to be acts performed by police official during discharge of his official duty, the answer is "No". The alleged act committed by the revisionist-accused does not fall within ambit of "act committed during discharge of official duties". Therefore, there was no requirement to obtain sanction u/s. 197 CrPC or 140 Delhi Police Act.
21. The third ground for challenging the impugned order is that even if entire evidence filed with the charge-sheet is taken as gospel truth, there is no sufficient material to raise grave suspicion against the revisionist-accused.
22. TCR would show that alongwith the charge-sheet, three MLCs of the complainant have been placed. One MLC of complainant Anuj Suhag was prepared on 15.04.2016 at 4:25 AM at Safdarjung Hospital when he was taken by revisionist-accused Ct. Balwant Singh and the said MLC would show that at the time of examination, the doctor did not find any fresh injury upon the patient. Second MLC of Anug Suhag was prepared on the same day i.e. 15.04.2016 at Safdarjung Hospital at about 4:55 PM, when he was taken by Ct. Yogesh and Ct. Parmod for medical examination, the doctor had noted swelling, bruise, tenderness and contusion on the medical examination of complainant Anuj Suhag. The charge-sheet also contains OPD card of complainant CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 13 of 15 Anuj Suhag prepared on 16.04.2016 at Safdarjung Hospital wherein he has made allegations of physical assault by Police on 15.04.2016 and the doctor had noticed tenderness present on local examination and there was tenderness, swelling and abnormal mobility.
23. Charge-sheet also contains true copy of DD no. 7B dated 15.04.2016 recorded by ASI Hukum Singh wherein he has recorded that on receipt of complaint of Seenu, he had reached to house of Anuj Suhag where after seeing Seenu and police officials, Anuj started abusing and assaulting his wife and during this, his legs and head were hit on the staircase and thereafter, Anuj Suhag got more angry and in order to maintain peace, Anuj Suhag was arrested in kalandra.
24. The first MLC was prepared after arrest of Anuj Suhag in kalandra wherein the doctor did not notice any injury on the body of Anuj Suhag (though ASI Hukum Singh recorded in DD entry that Anuj sustained injury on his leg and head before arrest in Kalandra). The second MLC prepared on the same day at about 4:55 PM showed injuries on body of the complainant. The two MLCs prepared on 15.04.2016 suggest that the complainant sustained injury between the period of preparation of two MLCs at Safdarjung hospital. Whether the material gives rise of grave suspicion or not against the accused is a matter of trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed with the charge-sheet, it can not be said that the material was not sufficient to take cognizance of offence.
CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 14 of 15
25. The revisionist-accused has failed to show that there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC-02. There is no merit in the revision of the accused. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
26. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
27. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
Pronoucned in the open
Court on this 11th November, 2025
Digitally signed
by NEHA (NEHA)
NEHA Date: 2025.11.11
16:01:40 +0530 District Judge-06, South East
Saket Courts, Delhi.
CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 15 of 15