Delhi District Court
Pushpa Shaw vs State on 17 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-004666-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 120/2024
SMT. PUSHPA SHAW,
W/o. Shri. Dev Kumar Shaw,
R/o. 115-A, Sector-2, E-Kamna,
Vaishali, PS. Indirapuram,
District Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201010.
Also at; M-18, Tis Hazari Court
Delhi-110054. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI).
2. SHRI. DEV KUMAR SHAW,
S/o. Late Shri. Ram Nath Shaw,
R/o. Village Shekhpura Dih,
Post Office and PS. Amnour,
Dist. Chhapra Saran,
Bihar-841401. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 28.03.2024
Date of institution : 30.03.2024
Date when judgment was reserved : 22.09.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 17.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397/399/400/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.12.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (Mahila Court)/Ld. MM-03 (Mahila Court), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 1 of 29 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:10:46 +0530 MM-03') in case bearing; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw, Ct. Case No. 24135/2023', PS. Subzi Mandi as well as against the judgment dated 29.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment'), passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court)/Ld. MM-02 (Mahila Court), Central Tis Hazari Court (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-02') in case bearing; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw, CC No. 23/3/08', PS. Subzi Mandi. Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court disposed of the application filed by the revisionist, seeking production of documents as well as action against the record room officer, who had allegedly removed the documents filed by the revisionist in CC No. 23/3/08. Apposite to further note that by means of impugned judgment, the Ld. Trial Court, dismissed revisionist's complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against respondent no. 2, alleging commission of offences under Sections 494/498/498A/506(part II) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and acquitted respondent no. 2 of the offences under Sections 494/498A/506(part II) of IPC.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings is a complaint, filed by the revisionist against respondent no. 2 before Ld. MM-02, inter alia asserting that she/the revisionist was married to respondent no. 2 at Kolkata as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. As per the revisionist, initially, the parties resided and cohabited together at Kolkata for about two months and thereafter, came to Delhi and lived together at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for about 04-05 (four-five) years. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, since respondent no. 2 was pursuing his education/studies at that point in time and consequently, unemployed, the household expenditures of the revisionist and respondent no. 2 were met by CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 2 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:10:51 +0530 revisionist's parents. Further, as per the revisionist, in the year, 1997, while they were residing at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, respondent no. 2 managed to get a job of sorter in Railway Mail Services, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. However, soon after respondent no. 2's parents started taunting and harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Congruently, as per the revisionist, respondent no. 2's parents ridiculed her/the revisionist by proclaiming that, had respondent no. 2 married after him managing a government job, his wife would have fetched at least Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs to Rupees Five Lakhs only) as dowry and started picking up quarrel with the revisionist on one or the other pretext. At the same time, revisionist avowed that even respondent no. 2 used to beat her up for insufficient dowry. However, despite all such atrocities, the revisionist is asserted to have persevered to bear respondent no. 2's and his parent's taunts, physical and mental assault, humiliation, etc., solely to salvage her marriage. Markedly, the revisionist further asserted that respondent no. 2 lost all interest in matrimonial life and did not take care of the revisionist, who could not conceive even after twelve years of marriage. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, respondent no. 2 even planned to marry some other girl for dowry, whilst respondent no. 2's parents continued to threaten the revisionist of dire consequences, in case she reported the matter to any authority. As per the revisionist, respondent no. 2 left her company on 18.05.2006 and married one Ms. Seema, D/o. Mr. Janak Shaov, Garh Bazar, R/o. Village Majhi, P.S. Arvind, Saran, District Chhapra (Bihar) on 22.05.2006, during the lifetime of the revisionist. As per the revisionist, she approached the police authorities against the illegal acts/offences of respondent no. 2 as CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 3 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:10:57 +0530 well as his family members, however, to no avail. Consequently, the revisionist approached the Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-02 by means of the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 494/498/498A/506(part II) IPC against respondent no. 2.
2.1. Noticeably, upon such complaint being filed, Ld. MM-02, proceeded to record pre-summoning evidence and upon completion of said proceedings, Ld. MM-02, vide order dated 05.06.2007, proceeded to take cognizance of offence and issue summons against respondent no. 2. Thereafter, upon respondent no. 2's entering appearance, Ld. Trial Court proceeded to record, pre-charge evidence, followed by framing of charges under Sections 498A/494/506(II) IPC against respondent no. 2, pursuant to order dated 22.11.2011, leading to commencement of trial before Ld. MM-02. Relevantly, during the course of trial proceedings, revisionist, examined four witnesses, i.e., CW-1/revisionist/Smt. Pushpa Shaw; CW-2/Smt. Chandrawati Devi; CW-3/Mr. Kamal Kishore; and CW-4/Mr. Krishan Rana.
Thereafter, on conclusion of evidence by/on behalf of the revisionist, statement of respondent no. 2 was recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.02.2016, wherein, respondent no. 2 denied his involvement in the present case as well as asserted of his false implication by the revisionist. Consequently, upon conclusion of said proceedings, arguments were addressed by/on behalf of the revisionist and respondent no. 2 before the Ld. Trial Court. Subsequently, as aforenoted, Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-02 vide impugned judgment/judgment dated 29.05.2017, acquitted respondent no. 2 of the charges levelled against him inter alia under the following observations;
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 4 of 29 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:01 +0530
"*** 27. Since the complainant has not been able to prove that there was any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security from the complainant or any person related to her or that the accused Dev Kumar Shaw harassed the complainant, there is no need to dwell upon whether there was any harassment in relation to demand for dowry or non-fulfilment thereof.
28. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to establish that the accused Dev Kumar Shaw had subjected the complainant to cruelty as alleged. Accordingly, the said ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC has not been established by the complainant.
29. In light of the above, the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.
*** *** ***
40. The complainant has failed to bring any direct evidence of the alleged second marriage between the accused and alleged Ms. Seema. The complainant could have examined the priest who had solemnized the marriage of the accused with the alleged Ms. Seema. However, not only has the complainant failed to examine the priest, she has nowhere even specified the ceremony by which the alleged marriage was performed. Further, the complainant has not examined any person, who had attended the alleged marriage of the accused with the alleged Ms. Seema. The complainant has not even examined the relative(s) who had informed her mother regarding the second marriage of the accused with alleged Ms. Seema. In fact, CW-2, mother of the complainant, could not even name any such relative. Further, the complainant has not filed any documentary proof, such as photographs, certificate of marriage etc., of the marriage of the accused with the alleged Ms. Seema. In fact, in her cross-examination, CW-1 stated that she neither had any photographs nor any written/documentary proof of marriage of the accused with alleged Ms. Seema. Even CW-2 stated that she had not seen any photographs of the alleged marriage.
41. Thus, in the absence of any documentary or oral evidence with regard to the same, the allegation that the accused had married alleged Ms. Seema on 22.05.2006 remains not proved.
42. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 5 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:06 +0530 *** *** ***
46. There is nothing in the testimony of CW-2 Mrs. Chandrawati Devi with regard to the allegations in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC. No other witness has been examined by the complainant in the above regard.
47. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC against the accused Dev Kumar Shaw. CONCLUSION
48. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Dev Kumar Shaw is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 494/498A/506(II) I.P.C.
49. Necessary bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. with surety along with passport size photographs and proofs of residence of the accused as well as surety and proof of soundness of the surety have been furnished by the accused Dev Kumar Shaw and accepted. ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.2. Conspicuously, against the aforesaid judgment/impugned judgment, the revisionist preferred leave to appeal, in terms of the provisions under Section 378 Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case bearing; ' Mrs. Pushpa Shaw v. Mr. Dev Kumar Shaw, Crl.LP No. 469/2017 '. However, the same was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 12.12.2019 inter alia under the following observations;
"*** 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal against a judgment dated 29.05.2017, passed by the learned MM, Tis Hazari Courts, in Sessions Case no. 522382/2016. In terms of the impugned judgment, the respondent was acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 498A/494/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The said proceedings had commenced pursuant to a complaint dated 23.11.2006 filed before the learned MM, Tis Hazari Courts. On 22.11.2011, charges were framed under sections 494/498A/506 of the IPC, registered with P.S. Subzi Mandi. The said complaint was registered at the instance of the CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 6 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:10 +0530 petitioner (the Complainant), who is the respondent's wife. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment to the extent that it acquits the accused of an offence under section 494 of the IPC.
3. In view of the above, the limited question to be considered is whether the impugned judgment is erroneous inasmuch as it acquits the respondent of the alleged offence under Section 494 of the IPC.
*** *** ***
21. In view of the above, the Court concluded that evidence, both documentary and oral, produced by the Complainant was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under section 494 IPC.
22. The standard of proof required to prove a charge in a domestic enquiry is materially different from proving a charge of a criminal offence. In order to secure a conviction, the Complainant was required to establish that the respondent had married another person during the subsistence of their marriage, beyond any reasonable doubt.
23. It is well settled that no interference with an order of acquittal is warranted in an appeal unless the court finds compelling reasons for the same (See: Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2008) 10 SCC 450; Niraj vs. Ramesh Pratap Singh, 2012: SCC OnLine Del 3813).
24. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court has evaluated the evidence as obtaining in the present case and has concluded that the allegations of bigamy have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
25. Accordingly, the present petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is rejected. ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Markedly, the revisionist proceeded to agitate her claim before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the aforenoted decision/order of the Hon'ble High Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2459/2021, titled as; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw', which was dismissed/disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021, inter alia under the following observations;
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 7 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.11.17 16:11:14 +0530
"*** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Significantly, the revisionist preferred a review petition against the aforenoted order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, bearing; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw, RP(Crl.) No. 429/2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 2459/2021'. However, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.01.2022. Appositely, the revisionist, subsequently, moved an application before the Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-03 inter alia asserting, as under;
"*** 2. That the Accused managed with the officer of Record room, where my case file was there and he got removed two hand written statement of Sh. Sonu Kumar, second brother-in-law of criminal Dev Kumar Shaw dated 1.11.2006 and statement of Sh. Dev Kumar Shaw given to postal Inspector Chhapra-41301. This document is very important to prove that criminal got 2nd marriage, without getting divorce from me.
3. It is respectfully submitted that it is relevant to mention that on 09.8.2016 & 08.10.2016 i.e two times the Id L.M.M had given warning to the concerned officer Ahlmad who has failed to arranged the file in proper order despite specific direction. He is warranted to be careful in future. Ahlmad is directed to arrange the file in proper order. Therefore it is clear that hand written stamens of above mentioned two person were removed from the file. That I have lost case as relevant documents have not been placed before the Id Magistrate. At that time an advocate was appearing on my behalf and he had not noticed this fact. Due to missing of the hand written documents, due to that I have lst case That Certified copies Annexure III, List of Documents shows which I have filed shows existence of the above mentioned two documents but on checking up the record these are not available in the record.
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 8 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:18 +0530
I have attached certified copy of the List of Documents Annexure - III photocopy and order of Hon'ble court to Ahlmad about organized the file properly as 2 times, these are as followings:-
a) The List of Documents Annexure III photocopy which are showing available in certified cop applied by me and it proves that I have filled the hands written statement of brother-in-law of Accused and Statement of Accused but the same is being get misplaced by Accused with the help of record room officer.
b) Photocopy of Hon'ble court ordered dated 09.8.2016 & 08.10.2016 i.e to Alhmed as attached with it.
4 In the above stated circumstances, kindly provide me two handwritten statements which are mentioned in the above mentioned in this notice and that certified copies of documents I have submitted and shows availability of these two documents. But in reality those are not available as I have inspected the record of CC NO. 23/03/08 two times but I did not find these two documents, which are relevant for my case. I therefore pray that the two documents mentioned above may be furnished to me. In case those two documents are not available a Certificate may be issued to the effect, to enable me to get re- opened the CC NO. 23/03/08. ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.5. Significantly, on the revisionist's aforesaid correspondence/application, the concerned Branch In-Charge, Record Room (Criminal), Tis Hazari Court, filed a report dated 05/06.09.2023 inter alia asserting, as under;
"*** With reference to your letter dated 16/08/2023 on the above noted subject I am directed by Ld. Officer In-charge, Record Rooms, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to inform you that file bearing CC No-23/03/08 titled as "Pushpa Shaw Vs. Dev Kumar Shaw" U/s. 494/498/498-A IPC, PS Subzi Mandi, DOD-29/05/2017 consigned in the Record Room (Criminal), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide Goshwara No-154/2017 (Mahila Court-Central) containing 02 parts of file i.e. Part-A from page no-01 to 02 & 03 to 297 and Part-B from page no-01 to 02 & 03 to 473 including added pages and all pages are still lying in the said file and no such paper / document has been misplaced / removed from the present file from CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 9 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.11.17 16:11:22 +0530 present record room and you may inspect the said file, as per rules.***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.6. Relevantly, upon consideration of the aforesaid response of the concerned Branch-In-Charge, as well as in light of the application of the revisionist, the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2023/impugned order, disposed of the said application inter alia under the following observations;
"*** Report of branch in-charge dated 05.09.2023 is given to the complainant. In view of the same, nothing remans to be adjudicated further and the applicant may file an appeal if having any further grievance.
Application is disposed off accordingly.***"
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel/Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order and impugned judgment were passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled principles of law, deserving their setting aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order and impugned judgment were passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere assumptions and that no sound and cogent reasons have been assigned in the said order/judgment. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order and impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the relevant factors and passed the said order/judgment in hate, contrary to provisions of law. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the Ld. Trial Court did not afford opportunity to the revisionist to address her arguments and bring correct facts to the attention of the Ld. Trial Court. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 10 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:11:26 +0530 appreciate that respondent no. 2 had been terminated from his services on the basis of the documents, which formed the part of Departmental Annexure III, which were illegally removed from records of the Ld. Trial Court by respondent no. 2, while acting in collusion with the court staff/officials employed at the relevant point in time, in the Court of the Ld. Trial Court. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the handwritten statement of respondent no. 2 and his brother-in-law are important confessional evidence, which respondent no. 2, successfully removed from the judicial record, with the assistance of the court staff of the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, it was argued that the revisionist, being a layman, was unaware of the judicial procedure, leading to the acquittal of respondent no. 2 from the instant case. Even otherwise, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that while passing the impugned judgment the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent no. 2 used to beat the revisionist for not bringing further money from her parents. Correspondingly, it was argued that respondent no. 2 left the company of revisionist on 18.05.2006 and married Ms. Seema, without obtaining divorce from the revisionist and during the lifetime of the revisionist, making him liable for the offence under Section 494 IPC. Further, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that despite the complaint filed by the revisionist, the concerned police officials failed to take any action against respondent no. 2.
Correspondingly, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in not considering that from the contents of the revisionist's complaint, documentary evidence, evidence of CWs and other material record, the offence under Section 494 IPC stands unequivocally and unambiguously proved against respondent no. 2 in the instant CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 11 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:11:30 +0530 case. However, it was argued that despite the same, the accused/respondent no. 2 was wrongly/erroneously acquitted by the Ld. Trial Court.
3.1. Ld. Counsel/Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the revisionist further submitted/vehemently argued that the impugned order and impugned judgment were passed in contradiction to provisions of law and have resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that there are several lacunae in the case of the prosecution and trial proceedings, in particular, as per the Ld. Counsel, statement of respondent no. 2 was recorded in the absence of the revisions. Correspondingly, it was argued that the impugned judgment could not have been passed, without cross examination of respondent no. 2. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the revisionist was not even afforded proper opportunity to present her case, as her/revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
was erroneously dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court, divesting the revisionist her right to place additional material/document on record. Further, it was argued that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist did not properly represent her in the instant case, besides did not cross examine respondent no. 2, which would have brought forth the correct facts and material on record. In this regard, it was further argued that due to want of proper legal aid/assistance, while the case of the revisionist was not properly put forth before the Ld. Trial Court, however, respondent no. 2 persevered to unjustly benefit at the expense(s) of the revisionist. Even otherwise, it was argued that even the revisionist's case was not properly put forth before the superior courts, leading to gross miscarriage of justice.
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 12 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:34 +0530
3.2. Ld. Counsel/Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the revisionist further vehemently argued that the documents, missing from the record of the Ld. Trial Court are necessary for proper adjudication in the instant case. Correspondingly, it was argued that the said fact was not even considered by the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order and impugned judgment. In so far as the maintainability of the instant petition is concerned, Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that considering the blatant conduct on the part of respondent no. 2 and the considered court staff, necessary order, in the interest of justice may be passed by this Court. As per the Ld. Counsel, provisions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are quite exhaustive and wide in ambit to permit passing of any order, in the interest of justice. Correspondingly, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that since the revisionist has failed to secure justice despite approaching various forums, this Court is well within its right to pass necessary/requisite order, in the interest of justice. Ergo, Ld. Counsel entreated that the impugned order and judgment be set aside in the interest of justice and respondent no. 2 be punished for the offences/charges levelled against him. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia, AIR 1965 SC 1585; and Ramagopal Ganpatrai Ruia & Anr. v. State of Bombay, 1957 SCC Online SC 67.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 asserted that the impugned order and impugned judgment were passed by the Ld. trial Court, being wary of the settled law as well as facts of the case brought forth. As per Ld. Addl. PP for the State, no grounds or reasons for interference have been made out by the revisionist in the instant, besides, it was argued that the instant CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 13 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:11:38 +0530 petition is grossly misconceived, not maintainable and deserves an outright dismissal. Correspondingly, it was argued that the revisionist has already agitated her claims before the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and now opted to re- agitate her claims by means of the present frivolous petition, deserving dismissal. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed as not maintainable and amounting to gross abuse of process of law.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel/Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the revisionist as well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1, heard as well as the record(s), including the documents/material placed on record, including the written submissions filed by/on behalf of the revisionist, as well as the records of the Ld. Trial Court have been thoroughly perused.
6. At the outset, and before proceeding with a determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems is apposite to refer and reproduce the provisions under law/Section 397 Cr.P.C.1, as under;
"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in 1 Pari materia provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which provides, "438. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.***Explanation - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.***(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding..." (Emphasis supplied) CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 14 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:43 +0530 confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
*** *** *** (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite manifest that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of the parties only in the instances where there is a palpable error, non- compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. observed as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 15 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:47 +0530 manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Analogously, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC Online Del. 1192, in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations", the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re- consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC Online Del. 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded the law, as under;
2Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 958.
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 16 of 29 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:51 +0530
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, this Court would proceed with the determination of the rival contentions put forth before this Court. However, before proceeding any further, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant extract(s) from the prayer clause of the instant petition, as under;
"*** In view of the submission made herein above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Allow the Criminal Revision by way of setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Hon'ble Court of Ms. ***, MM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Ct. Case No. 24135, titled as Pushpa Shaw V/s. Dev Kumar Shaw; and further
(b) set aside the judgment dated 29.05.2017 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 23/3/08 u/S. 494/498/498A/506(II) IPC, PS. Subzi Mandi, titled as Pushpa Shaw V/s. Dev Kumar Shaw; ***"
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Unquestionably, in light of the foregoing, the question that outrightly falls for consideration before this Court in the instant case pertains to the maintainability of the present petition against the judgment dated 29.05.2017/impugned judgment, passed by Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-02, acquitting respondent no. 2. Markedly, in order to deal with the said CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 17 of 29 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:11:55 +0530 aspect/issue, this Court deems it pertinent here to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/Cr.P.C. as under;
"378. Appeal in case of acquittal-*** (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.*** *** *** ***
399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision- (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-
section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub- sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.
*** *** ***
401. High Court's powers of revision-***(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.***"
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Pertinently, from a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite clear that the law provides for specific remedy/relief under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., in form on appeal/leave to appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against an order of acquittal of an accused in a proceeding initiated on a complaint, at the relevant point of time. Congruently, from a conjoint reading of Sections 399 and 401 Cr.P.C. it is quite lucid CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 18 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:11:59 +0530 that there is a specific embargo under law to initiation of a revision petition in cases where an appeal lies under the said Code/Cr.P.C., however, no such appeal is preferred. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 13 SCC 115, wherein the Hon'ble Court explicated the law in the foregoing context, as under;
"13. Now so far as Issue (ii), namely, in a case where no appeal is brought though appeal lies under the Code, whether revision application still to be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed, the answer lies in sub-section (4) of Section 401CrPC itself. Sub-section (4) of Section 401CrPC reads as under:
"401. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed."
13.1. It cannot be disputed that now after the amendment in Section 372CrPC after 2009 and insertion of the proviso to Section 372CrPC, a victim has a statutory right of appeal against the order of acquittal. Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal. Even the same would be in the interest of the victim himself/herself as while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378CrPC, subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court.
13.2. As observed by this Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali [Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 801] , so far as the victim is concerned, the victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 19 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.11.17 16:12:03 +0530 stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like sub-section (4) of Section 378CrPC in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. Therefore, so far as Issue (ii) is concerned, namely, in a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372CrPC or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. Issue (ii) is therefore answered accordingly."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Correspondingly, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jhantoo v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC Online All 2528 , in an akin situation, remarked as under;
"7. Section 378(4) Cr. P.C. read with Section 401(4) Cr. P.C. shows that whereunder Criminal Procedure Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. Thus when section 378(4) Cr. P.C. provides that if the order of acquittal is passed in the case instituted upon complaint, the appeal may be filed against that acquittal after the special leave to appeal from the High Court on the application of the complainant, therefore, revision was not entertainable by the Sessions Judge in view of Section 401(4) Cr. P.C. Here in this case, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dharmveer v. Nemwati reported in 2001 Cr LJ 4427 : (2001 All LJ 1999), is very much relevant, in which this Court held that revision against order of acquittal is barred by Section 401(4) of Criminal Procedure Code as the order of acquittal is appealable under Section 378(4) of the Code.
8. No doubt revision by Sessions Court is permissible as per provisions under Section 399 Cr. P.C. which contains the words "in any proceeding"
and confirms on the Sessions Judge the powers conferred by Section 401 Cr. P.C. but since Section 401(4) Cr. P.C. is very much clear in this regard that CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 20 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.11.17 16:18:18 +0530 whereunder the Code appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. Therefore, in such circumstances the revisional power in this regard by the Sessions Judge is restricted against the order of acquittal by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401(4) read with Section 378(4) of Cr. P.C. Hence in the aforesaid circumstances, this revision has some force to this extent that the learned Sessions Judge was not empowered to revise the order passed by the learned Magistrate pertaining to the acquittal of the accused Therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed accordingly. The impugned I order is hereby set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Clearly, in light of the foregoing, this Court unambiguously reiterates that the law is well settled that in the case where the statute/Cr.P.C. provides for a specific remedy in form of an appeal at the instance of the complainant and/or victim, criminal revision at the behest of such complainant/victim is not maintainable. In fact, as aforenoted, the superior courts have unequivocally remarked that in a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4) of the Code, revision application against such an order at the instance of the victim or the complainant, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
15. Ergo, with such understanding, when the facts of the instant case are conscientiously perused, in the considered opinion of this Court, revision/present petition against the impugned judgment/judgment dated 29.05.2017, passed by Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-02, acquitting respondent no. 2 is clearly not maintainable. In fact, in the instant case, as aforenoted, not only CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 21 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:18:22 +0530 has the revisionist preferred a petition under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.12.2019, rather, even a SLP (Crl.) No. 2459/2021, titled as; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw', against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed/disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021 and even a review against the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was subsequently, dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.01.2022 in case titled as; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw, RP(Crl.) No. 429/2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 2459/2021'. However, the revisionist, undeterred, opted to challenge the impugned judgment by means of the present petition, under the garb of challenging the impugned order dated 01.12.2023, quite manifestly and grossly amounting to blatant abuse of process of law. Needless to mention that the petitioner, being cognizant of the aforenoted orders of the superior court not only preserved to impugn the judgment dated 29.05.2017, passed by Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM-02/impugned judgment, acquitting respondent no. 2, rather, did not even restrain to cast serious aspersions on superior courts under its instant petition and written submissions, constituting nothing other than blatant disdain/disregard of the judicial verdicts/dictates, principles of stare decisis and binding nature of decisions of the superior courts, besides, also amounting to serious contempt/derision of sanctity and authority of courts.
16. In as much as the contention of the Ld. Counsel pertaining to alleged impropriety under order dated 01.12.2023 of the Ld. Trial Court, disposing of revisionist's application under the observation that no documents were found missing under the CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 22 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:18:25 +0530 records of Ld. Trial Court is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality, impropriety or lacunae is observable under the said order. Needless in this regard to note that the said order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on consideration of the report filed by the concerned Branch In-Charge, Record Room (Criminal), Tis Hazari Court, affirming that no documents were found missing under the judicial file/TCR as otherwise, alleged by the revisionist. Correspondingly, in so far as the contention regarding the 'so called' missing documents, leading to failure of the revisionist's case is concerned, it is noted from a scrupulous analysis of the records of the Ld. Trial Court that so not contention was raised before the Ld. Trial Court and/or an application moved by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court during the course of trial so as to summon the necessary party(ies) and/or documents either under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Correspondingly, it is noted that the revisionist did not even opt to challenge the order dated 05.05.2017, dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning one Anumandal Aarakshi, Padadhikari, Mandhora along with Gyapaank no. 1568 dated 11.09.2006 and CW-4 Sh. Krishan Rana, Insp. Superintendent Railway Mail Service, D Division Nanak Pura, Delhi-110021. Even otherwise, under the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court duly considered the factum of declaration of respondent no. 2's alleged bigamy under non- judicial forums as irrelevant to prove charges under Section 494 IPC, belying the assertion raised by/on behalf of the revisionist at this stage. Needless to mention that even the Hon'ble High Court in the aforenoted order dated 12.12.2019, while dismissing the CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 23 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:18:28 +0530 revisionist's entreaty under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. explicitly recorded, "...standard of proof required to prove a charge in a domestic enquiry is materially different from proving a charge of a criminal offence. In order to secure a conviction, the Complainant was required to establish that the respondent had married another person during the subsistence of their marriage, beyond any reasonable doubt..." Pertinent at this stage to reproduce the relevant extracts from the impugned judgment, in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"*** 39. In order to prove the charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC against the accused, the complainant was required to produce direct evidence of the factum of solemnization of second marriage by the accused during the subsistence of his marriage with the complainant. The complainant has relied heavily on the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, 'D' Division, New Delhi Ex. CW4/4. As already noted above, the said document has not been proved. Even otherwise, said document does not in any manner assist the compainant in proving the guilt of the accused with regard to the alleged bigamy. No inquiry or finding of any authority, other than that of a judicial authority, can have any bearing, much less be conclusive, in judicial proceedings, more so a criminal trial. The complainant was required in the present case to have examined witnesses or tendered material evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The fact that a non-judicial authority, then be it the Superintendent, Railway Mail Services, or the National Human Rights Commission or the Delhi Women's Commission, has found that the accused had contracted/solemnised a second marriage, and acting on the said finding dismissed the accused from service, is no evidence or basis to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. The standard of proof to be employed in criminal cases is of proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, non-judicial authorities may not even be applying the rules of evidence strictly. For instance, while dismissing an objection taken by the accused in his representation against the inquiry report to the effect that the complainant had not produced any witness who had attended the alleged second marriage, the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 24 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:18:32 +0530 observed in his order Ex. CW4/4, "in this case Smt. Pushpa Shaw is herself in a capacity of a state with he is not suppose to produce any witness. No where in the rules is proscribed that a State witness will further produce any witness in support of his/her deposition."
The principles of inadmissibility of hearsay evidence etc. appear to have been alien to the said authority. Thus, the aforesaid document Ex.CW4/4 is of no assistance to the complainant in the present case.***"
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Clearly, in light of the foregoing, it is reiterated that no illegality or infirmity or palpable error can be attributed to impugn order dated 01.12.2023 of the Ld. Trial Court. Congruently, as a concluding remark, this Court deems it apposite to note that against the order dated 01.12.2023/impugned order, the present revision petition was preferred by the revisionist only on 28.03.2024, with a delay of around 28 (twenty eight) days. However, against the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2017, notwithstanding that this Court has already noted that the instant revision is not maintainable, in light of the foregoing, the instant revision was filed with a delay of around 2495 (two thousand and ninety five) days. Apposite to outrightly note that as per Article 131 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Limitation Act'), a period of 90 (ninety) days, from the date of the order sought to be challenged, has been prescribed as the statutory period of limitation. Markedly, in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, accompanying to the present revision petition, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has entreated for condonation of delay of "eighty (80) days" in preferring the instant revision petition, inter alia averring as under;
"...3. That it is also submitted in the month of January 2024 due to severe winter condition Revisionist was ill due to got uncontrolled her diabetes, BP and suffering by multiple critical chronic diseases she could not file the revision petition on CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 25 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:18:36 +0530 time.
4. That the present application is bona fide may be allowed in the interest of justice.
PRAYER It's is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may:
a) For the facts, circumstances and reasons set out hereinabove, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay in filing the present Revision Petition; and
b) To pass such order or orders deem just and proper in the interest of justice and in circumstances of this case. ***"
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Clearly, it is seen from above that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/revisionist has attributed the delay to the factors of winter, ill-health of the revisionist and her diabetes, leading to delay. However, as aforenoted, neither any documents have been annexed with the instant application in support of the said claims nor even the proper period of delay, specified therein. Markedly, in respect of the foregoing, this Court deems it pertinent to note that it is conscious of the repeated avowals of the superior courts that there is no presumption under law3 that the delay in approaching courts was deliberate on the part of the litigant and that the courts are advised to adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, in variance to, technical interpretation while considering an entreaty for condonation of delay. However, this Court is further conscious that the superior courts have also persistently avowed 4 that an application for condonation of delay, "should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to 3 J.M. Ramachandra & Sons v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 2001 SCC Online Del 1082.4
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.
CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 26 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.11.17 16:18:39 +0530
justice dispensation system." As a corollary, application for condonation of delay, which is drafted in an extremely casual manner so as to even be bereft of material particulars, besides failing to disclose sufficient cause such as a bald statement of a party's alleged ill heath without any supporting documents, cannot, in the considered opinion of this Court be considered to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Ergo, in light of the said principles, when the reasons for condonation of delay are scrupulously analyzed, this Court finds itself difficult to be convinced that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/revisionist has been able to make out 'sufficient cause' for not timely preferring the revision. Needless to note that not only under either of the applications any date, time or particulars of the revisionist's alleged ill-health forthcoming nor any explicit/clear reasons demonstrable, explaining the reasons for delay. In fact, it is reiterated that even the correct period sought to be condoned has not been properly specified/stated under the instant application. Clearly, the application has been drafted with utmost casual approach, failing to demonstrate any reasonable/justifiable cause, unsupported by any documents or material particulars, in fact, even the medical documents, so as to convince this Court to grant any relief or indulgence in favour of the revisionist, even on the aspect of delay/limitation.
19. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discussion and keeping in view the aforenoted judicial precedents, law as well as the submissions addressed before this Court, this Court unambiguously reiterates that the judgment dated 29.05.2017, passed by Ld. MM-02 (Mahila Court), Central Tis Hazari Court in case bearing; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw, CC No. CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 27 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:18:43 +0530 23/3/08', PS. Subzi Mandi, acquitting respondent no. 2 of the charges levelled against him is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the bar under Section 399/401 Cr.P.C. and for the aforesaid reasons. Correspondingly, in as much as 01.12.2023 passed by Ld. MM-03 (Mahila Court), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing; 'Pushpa Shaw v. Dev Kumar Shaw, Ct. Case No. 24135/2023', PS. Subzi Mandi, disposing of revisionist's application seeking documents from judicial file and further inquiry is concerned, it is reiterated that no illegality and/or impropriety can be attributed to the impugned order, as premised on proper appreciation of facts and circumstances as well as material brought forth. Needless to reiterate that the revisionist has further failed to convince this Court to grant any relaxation in her favour, even on the aspect of delay. Apposite at this stage for this Court to further note that, though, it/this Court holds highest regard for the decision(s) relied upon by Ld. Counsel/Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the revisionist/revisionist, however, the same would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, come to the aid/rescue of the case put forth by the revisionist in the manner as prayed for, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly, distinguishable.
20. Accordingly, in light of the above, this Court unambiguously observes that present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), to be paid by the revisionist to DLSA, Central, Tis Hazari Court, on the aspect of maintainability, merits, delay/aspect of limitation as well as amounting to gross abuse of process of law. Needless to reiterate, the revisionist has also deliberately delayed adjudication in the instant case by CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 28 of 29 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17 16:18:46 +0530 repeated adjournments and change of legal counsel, as demonstrable from the records of this Court.
21. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
22. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.11.17
16:18:51
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 17.11.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 120/2024 Smt. Pushpa Shaw v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 29 of 29