Delhi District Court
Veera Arora vs State Nct Of Delhi on 23 August, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
A. Crl. (R) No. 253/2024
Puneet Arora
S/o late Sh. Subhash Chandra
r/o C-301, cloud 9, Sector 1,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP.
............... Revisionist.
Versus
1. The State
Through Station House Office,
Police Station Jagat Puri,
Shahdara District, Delhi.
2. Kanika Khera
d/o Sh. Anil Khera
r/o 120, Ram Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
(Date of Institution: 09.12.2024) ...... Respondents.
B. Crl. (R) No. 254/2024
Anil Junjeja
s/o Jagdish Kumar
r/o C-67, Sector 9,
new Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad,
UP.
............... Revisionist.
Versus
1. The State
Through Station House Office,
Police Station Jagat Puri,
Shahdara District, Delhi.
Digitally signed by
CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23
17:09:57 +0530
A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 1/31
B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr.
C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
2
2. Kanika Khera
d/o Sh. Anil Khera
r/o 120, Ram Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
(Date of Institution: 10.12.2024) ....... respondents.
C. Crl. (R) No. 256/2024
Veera Arora
w/o late Sh. Subhash Chandra
r/o C-301, cloud 9, Sector 1,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP.
............... Revisionist.
Versus
1. The State, NCT of Delhi.
Through Station House Office,
Police Station Jagat Puri,
Shahdara District, Delhi.
2. Kanika Khera
d/o Sh. Anil Khera
r/o 120, Ram Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
(Date of Institution: 10.12.2024) ...... respondents.
Date of arguments : 31.07.2025
Date of order : 23.08.2025
ORDER
1. This common order shall decide three criminal revisions bearing no. 253/2024, 254/2024 and 256/2024 filed by revisionists namely Puneet Arora, Anil Juneja and Veera Arora respectively, arising out of same order dated 10.09.2024 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (Shahdara) whereby their respective applications seeking discharge were dismissed and Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2025.08.23 17:10:06 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 2/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
3they were directed to be charged under section 498A/406/420/120-B/34 IPC in a FIR No. 731/2022 Police Station Jagat Puri, Delhi.
2. The revisionists Puneet Arora and Veera Arora are the husband and mother-in-law of Kanika respectively, while revisionist Anil Juneja is the cousin of Puneet Arora.
3. The above FIR was registered at the behest of respondent no.2 Kanika Khera on her complaint dated 22.10.2022 filed by her at Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Seema Puri, Delhi levelling allegations of harassment and cruelty upon her by the revisionists.
4. The brief facts of the case are that Kanika and Puneet Arora were married to each other on 18.02.2022 at Hotel Radisson, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad (U.P.) in accordance with Hindu ceremonies. It was an arranged marriage, and no child was born from this wedlock. Kanika hails from Delhi, while Puneet is from Ghaziabad, U.P., though he has been settled in Canada for a long time, even prior to the marriage, where he works as a Mobile Application Developer. Immediately after the marriage, Puneet and Kanika visited Amritsar, and within a week, on 27/28.02.2022, they flew to Canada. Due to marital discord, they separated in June 2022 in Canada, when Kanika was shifted/turned out from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she took shelter at a known person's house in Canada and, in September 2022, returned to her parental home in Delhi. Subsequently, she lodged a complaint at the CAW Cell, Seema Puri, alleging harassment and cruelty by the revisionists, which Digitally signed A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU by CHARU Page No. 3/31 AGGARWAL B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:10:13 +0530 4 culminated in the registration of the FIR in the present case.
5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under Section 498-A/406/420/506/120-B/34 IPC was filed before Ld. Trial court. All three revisionists were summoned. They filed their respective applications under Section 239 Cr. PC seeking their discharge.
6. Vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024, the Ld. Trial court dismissed their said applications and ordered to charge the revisionists Puneet and Veera Arora for the offences under Section 498-A/406/34/420/120-B IPC and revisionist Anil Juneja only for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, all three revisionists have filed instant separate revisions on the following grounds that :-
(i) Revisionists Puneet Arora and Veera Arora are Indian citizens but living in Canada since long. As per the chargesheet, the alleged offence has been committed in Canada, therefore, the statutory sanction under Section 188 Cr. PC was mandatory before initiating any criminal action in the matter;
(ii) On merits, the chargesheet lacks ingredients of all the offences revisionists are booked for.
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the revisionists' applications seeking discharge observing prima facie material is on record to frame charges against them and part of offence has been committed in India, Digitally signed A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. by CHARU Page No. 4/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:10:21 +0530 5 therefore, statuary sanction under Section 188 Cr. PC is not required in this case.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that at the stage of framing of charge, there must be prima facie material on record to proceed against the accused persons for the alleged offences; however, in the present case, the chargesheet does not make out any offence whatsoever. He submitted that neither Kanika's complaint nor the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. disclose the commission of any criminal offence by any of the revisionists. He contended that Puneet and Kanika had cohabited in Canada for merely two months, and a bare perusal of the chargesheet reveals no allegation of dowry demand or cruelty upon Kanika to such an extent as to drive her to commit suicide or cause grievous injury to herself. According to the learned counsel, every allegation in the chargesheet only reflects the normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, and no criminality can be attributed on the basis of such allegations, therefore, the learned counsel urged that the impugned order be set aside and the revisionists be discharged.
It was also argued on behalf of the revisionists that, even if it is assumed that any offence is made out in the chargesheet, the revisionists cannot be proceeded against without prior sanction of the Central Government as mandated under Section 188 Cr.P.C., since the entire set of alleged offences were committed in Canada, and he argued that no such prior sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. has been obtained by the State in this Digitally signed by A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 5/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:10:27 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
6case.
9. Ld. Addl. PP duly assisted by Ld. counsel for Kanika has argued in support of impugned order. He submitted that material on record clearly makes out the prima facie case against the revisionists for the offences they are charged with. It is argued that Ld. trial court has rightly observed that part of offence has been committed on Indian soil, therefore, sanction u/s 188 Cr. PC does not attract in the case, specific allegation of unlawful demand of Rs.13,32,579/- is mentioned in the complaint, which on their demand, was deposited by the parents of Kanika in the joint account held by Kanika and Puneet, but later, the said amount was illegally transferred by Puneet into his personal account, he closed the said joint account without Kanika's consent, Kanika was thrown out of her matrimonial home in Canada by Puneet and Veera Arora, Puneet illegally kept Kanika's passport and mobile due to which she had to return India on white passport, her entire jewelry was illegally retained by Puneet and Veera Arora, which despite her repeated demands, was not returned to her, thus, prayer to dismiss the present revisions is made.
10. I have considered the arguments of Ld. counsel for revisionists, Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for Kanika as well as perused the written arguments filed on her behalf. Entire record perused.
11. These revisions are against the order of dismissal of revisionists' application seeking to discharge from the case, therefore, the settled principles of law to be taken into Digitally signed A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU by CHARU Page No. 6/31 AGGARWAL B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:10:33 +0530 7 consideration at the stage of charge are relevant to be discussed at first place.
12. It is a settled position of law that for framing a charge not only suspicion but grave suspicion is required. The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial as observed in V.C. Shukla V State through C.B.I., 1980 Supp SCC 92. The prosecution is required to establish a prima facie case before a charge can be framed. The Supreme Court in Union of India V Prafulla Kumar Samal & another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 considered scope of inquiry at the stage of framing of charge as per Section 227 of the Code in Sessions criminal trial and observed as under: -
"10(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
10(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
10(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
10(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:10:40 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 7/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.8
cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
13. Reverting backs to the present case: - Admittedly, Puneet and Kanika were married in February 2022 in Ghaziabad, U.P., and within a week, they traveled to Canada, where Puneet was already settled. In Canada, due to marital discord, they separated in June 2022. In September 2022, Kanika returned to her parental home in Delhi and lodged a complaint against the revisionists at the CAW Cell, which ultimately culminated in the registration of the FIR in this case.
14. Revisionists are seeking their discharge primarily on the grounds that as per the case of the prosecution the entire offence has been committed on Canadian soil, therefore, statutory sanction under section 188 Cr. PC. was mandatory before initiating criminal action against them which has not been obtained by the prosecution. They assert that even on merits no case is made out against them.
15. The present revisions raise the following questions for consideration: -
1. Whether on merits, any case is made out against the revisionists;Digitally signed by CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23
17:10:46 +0530
A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 8/31
B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr.
C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
92. if yes, the place of commission of 'offence';
(a) if offence is found to have been committed in India, then which court in India, will have jurisdiction to try the present case;
(b) if offence is found to have been committed outside India, whether sanction under Section 188 Cr. PC is required.
16. First, I will examine the merits of the case to determine whether, at this stage, there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the revisionists. In this regard, Kanika's initial complaint dated 22.10.2022 filed at the CAW Cell, along with the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are particularly relevant. During the investigation, in addition to the police officials, statements of Kanika's parents and her maternal uncle, Baldev Raj, were recorded, all of whom have given statements consistent with Kanika's aforementioned complaint filed at the CAW Cell.
17. The allegations in Kanika's complaint at CAW Cell against revisionists are as follows:
• The venue of the marriage was preferred by Puneet Arora, his mother, and his cousin Anil Juneja, who insisted that Kanika's father provide non-vegetarian food and imported liquor, along with lavish arrangements, at a five- star hotel. To fulfill these demands, Kanika's father spent Rs. 50 lakhs for the marriage solemnized at Radisson Blu, Ghaziabad, U.P. • At the marriage, Kanika was provided substantial Stridhan, including gold jewellery and expensive clothes, Digitally signed by A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 9/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:10:56 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.10
which were retained by Puneet and his family. • After the marriage, Kanika and Puneet visited Amritsar, where Kanika observed Puneet ogling other girls. • On 27.02.2022, they flew to Canada. At the airport, Puneet left Kanika alone with her luggage, creating difficulty in handling the trolley. A lady at immigration reprimanded Puneet and asked him to take care of Kanika.
• During their cohabitation, Kanika realized that Puneet was not affectionate toward her, failing to provide love, care, or respect. Instead, he was more attentive to his boss, family, and tenants, often remaining busy on his mobile talking to female friends. On one occasion in the car, when Kanika put her hand on Puneet to express affection, he later told Kanika's cousin that she had tried to cause an accident. • Kanika felt insecure in Canada as Puneet did not provide sufficient money. On one occasion, he scolded her for spending 15 dollars on her eyebrows, forcing her to rely on an emergency credit card provided by her brother. • Puneet opened a joint bank account in Canada in both his and Kanika's names. On 05.04.2022, Kanika's mother transferred Rs.13,32,579/- to the account on the demand of Puneet and his mother.
• In the first month of marriage, Kanika discovered that Puneet constantly chatted with cousins and female friends via WhatsApp and phone calls. Once, Puneet was speaking to a female friend at 3 a.m.; when Kanika requested him to Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:11:03 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 10/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
11speak with her instead, he ignored her. Kanika's warning statement, "jo hamare beech mein aayega usko keede padenge," was met with his retort, "beech mein toh tu aayi hain," which frightened Kanika, forcing her to apologize to Puneet and his girlfriend. Kanika stated that call detail records and WhatsApp messages could reveal the full truth. • Puneet habitually placed hidden recorders in the house in Canada and slept separately from Kanika.
• On 27.03.2022, Puneet traveled to India to bring his parents to Canada but did not take Kanika along and did not provide her with sufficient money for grocery, which was provided to her by him on the intervention of his mother but she was forced to rely on her brother's card for daily needs. Puneet and his parents returned to Canada on 18.05.2022. • While Puneet was in Delhi, Kanika repeatedly tried to contact him, but he ignored her calls. She later learned that Puneet's female best friend was staying at her mother's house in India, with whom he would roam late into the night. • Puneet used to avoid her phone calls while he was in India, due to which, once, in April 2022, she had to request her mother-in-law to get her connected with him which was taken negatively by Puneet accusing Kanika of mentally torturing and irritating him. Feeling deserted, Kanika requested her brother, who was also living in Victoria (Canada), to call her at his place (Victoria), nearly 5000 km away from Mississauga, where she was living.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23
17:11:09 +0530
A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 11/31
B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
12• Later, Kanika learned through Puneet's girlfriend that Puneet and his parents returned to Mississauga on 19.05.2022. Puneet remained unresponsive to her calls. On 27.05.2022, when Kanika returned to Mississauga, Puneet explicitly told her, "don't have any expectations from me,"
revealing his intention to desert her.
• On one occasion, when Kanika expressed her love, Puneet responded, "mai chahta hu tu apne dusre husband enjoy kar." The following morning, when Kanika put her hand on his shoulder, Puneet shouted, "don't touch me." and started messaging his female friend, later that day, he suggested for annulment, stating he would not have children with her and, "tu bardasht hi nahi kar payegi." Kanika informed her mother and mother-in-law that the marriage was effectively over. Shocked, she lay on the floor, which Puneet recorded. The next morning, Kanika sought help from her mother-in-law, who supported Puneet, dismissing the situation.
• Puneet repeatedly stated, "I do not want to live with you and you are a problem," and installed recorders in all rooms. He shared their private conversations with his family, friends and cousins. His mother and sister supported him, while his sister Garima mocked Kanika on WhatsApp. His cousin Anil Juneja advised her to separate from Puneet but also suggested consulting a marriage counsellor. Puneet verbally abused Kanika, questioning why her parents did not take her away. Kanika informed her parents of these Digitally signed by A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 12/31 AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. 17:11:17 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.13
atrocities, prompting them to come to Canada on 08.06.2022, but Puneet continued to disrespect them, forcing Kanika to leave for a hotel with her parents. • On 20.06.2022, Kanika discovered hidden recorders in her room and found that Puneet had hacked her phone. Upon confronting him, he became annoyed, snatched her bag, and she found her passport and phone missing. Distressed, she called the police and her brother. Her brother sent his friend and his wife to take her away. Kanika demanded her jewellery, which Puneet and his mother claimed was in a locker. Kanika filed a theft complaint in Canada for her passport and phone.
• In September 2022, Kanika returned to her parental home in India. She learned that during Puneet's stay in India, her parents hosted him and his family for lunch, during which, on Puneet and his mother's demand, her mother transferred Rs. 13,52,560 to the joint account in Canada for a car purchase. After their separation, Puneet withdrew the funds to his personal account, closed the joint account without Kanika's consent, and cancelled her Canadian insurance policy. Puneet's mother took possession of Kanika's jewellery and ornaments valued at over Rs. 16 lakh.
18. Vide impugned order Ld. trial court has charged all the three revisionists for the offence under section 498A 1PC, additionally, Puneet and Veera were also charged for the offences under section 406/420/34/120B IPC.Digitally signed by CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Page No. 13/31
Date: 2025.08.23
B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. 17:11:23 +0530
C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.14
19. First, I will deal with section 498A IPC:-
As per section 498A IPC, cruelty means any conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or death to life or harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or valuable security. The cruelty under this provision can be either physical, mental or both. It is also settled law that dowery demand is not essential to attract this offence.
Now, I proceed to analysis whether, at this stage, prima facie material is on record to charge revisionists under section 498A IPC.
20. REVISIONIST/ACCUSED PUNEET ARORA:-
At this stage, the material on record is sufficient to proceed against Puneet Arora and frame charges under Section 498A IPC. Kanika's initial complaint, along with the statements of her relatives recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation, contain specific allegations against Puneet Arora, namely that he had a habit of talking to and roaming around with other girls, installed hidden recorders in Kanika's bedroom, failed to provide money for daily expenses, left Kanika alone in Canada for two consecutive months within just one month of marriage, ignored her phone calls, and transferred Rs.13,32,579/- from their joint account to his personal account without her knowledge. If these claims are proved, they may amount to mental cruelty, thereby establishing a case under this section. Hence, at this initial stage, these allegations are Digitally signed by A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 14/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:11:29 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.15
sufficient to proceed against the accused under Section 498A IPC.
21. REVISIONISTS/ACCUSED VEERA ARORA AND ANIL JUNEJA: -
Admittedly, Veera Arora is mother-in-law of Kanika and Anil Juneja is cousin brother of Puneet Arora, son of his maternal aunt (Mausi) and middleman in the marriage;
The Hon'ble superior courts in catena of judgments have observed that tendency has developed that in dowry demand cases the entire family of husband even his distinct relatives are roped into without there being any specific allegations against them, therefore courts are expected to be more careful while dealing with husband's other family members especially, distinct relatives. Reference be made to Digamber and others VS. State of Maharashtra, SLP No.(criminal) 2122/2020 decided by Hon'ble Apex court on 20/12/2024, relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
" A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:11:36 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 15/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.16
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."
22. In the case in hand allegations against both Veera and Anil Juneja are completely vague and general in regard to offence under section 498A IPC for the following reasons:-
REVISIONIST/ACCUSED VEERA ARORA:-
As per chargesheet, the allegations against Veera are that, whenever quarrels used to arose between Puneet and Kanika, she (Veera) supported her son (Puneet), once she told Kanika that "divorce is common these days." and she raised demand of Rs.13,32,579/- from Kanika's parents in India. Except for these claims, no other allegation has been made against Veera. These allegations are found to be not sufficient to fall within the purview of 498A IPC for two broad reasons; Firstly, there is no specific incident, date, time or month in regard to these allegations. Secondly, even if, they are taken on the face of it, then also, do not attract offence under this provision. Court fails to comprehend as to how criminality can be attached to these allegations. At best, these allegations may amount to a normal conversation between a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law, particularly in the context of constant quarrels between newlyweds, where the elders may perceive that the relationship is not progressing. The conversation between Veera and Kanika appears to have been intended merely to make Kanika understand the importance of life, whether to live peacefully or Digitally signed A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU by CHARU Page No. 16/31 AGGARWAL B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:11:44 +0530 17 to part ways permanently. The neutral role played by Veera in the life of her son (Puneet) and daughter-in-law (Kanika) and her supporting hand for Kanika can be inferred from Kanika's own complaint dated 22.10.22 where at serial no. 8 and 11, she mentions that Puneet provided her grocery on the intervention of her mother-in-law and when he (Puneet) was not taking her phone calls in India, she had to made a phone call to her mother-
in-law, thereafter, Puneet talked to her, though he allegedly misbehaved with her. In my view, if at some occasions Veera supported her son that too on minor issues, which of course is natural human behavior, she cannot be roped into criminal offence. Furthermore, the formal lunch invitation extended by Kanika's parents to Puneet and his parents, in April 2022 while they were in India, suggest normalcy in the relationship between both the families as it is unlikely that Kanika's natal family would invite her husband in-laws for a formal lunch if they suspected the latter harassed her to the extent of committing suicide. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the material is not adequate to charge accused Veera for the offence under section 498A IPC.
23. COMMON ALLEGATION AGAINST PUNNET AND VEERA FOR DEMAND OF RS. 13,32,579/- FROM KANIKA'S PARENTS:-
It is alleged that when Kanika returned to India/Delhi in September 2022, she learned that during Puneet's stay in India from March to May 2022, while he along with his parents, was invited for lunch at her parents' house, he and his mother Veera Digitally signed A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU by CHARU Page No. 17/31 AGGARWAL B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:11:52 +0530 18 Arora demanded Rs. 13,32,579/- from her parents for the purchase of a car in Canada, which Kanika's mother subsequently transferred to the joint account of Puneet and Kanika held by them in Canada. Notably, there is no allegation that either Puneet or Veera forced or harassed Kanika or her parents in connection with this demand. The only averment in the chargesheet regarding this allegation is the " demand" by Puneet and Veera and the subsequent transfer of the said amount by Kanika's mother into the joint account. Mere demand sans any harassment either to Kanika or her family for meeting the demand does not attract offence under section 498A IPC. Reference be made to Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 9 SCC 643 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"29. ........... What is punishable under Section 498- A or Section 304-B IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband on the woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before her death a woman has been subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. The act of subjecting a woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be established by the 2 (2007) 15 SCC 415 3 (2010) 9 SCC 64 Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012 prosecution for the court to presume that the accused has caused the dowry death."
24. REVISIONIST/ACCUSED ANIL JUNEJA:-
He is cousin brother of Puneet Arora, son of his maternal aunt (Mausi) and also a middleman in the marriage of Puneet Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:11:59 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 18/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.19
and Kanika.
There are no specific allegations against accused Anil Juneja that could warrant framing of charge under Section 498A IPC against him. As per the chargesheet, the only allegations attributed to him are that he emphasized on having a lavish marriage ceremony in a five-star hotel and, after the marriage, during telephonic conversations with Kanika, he advised her either to separate from Puneet or to consult a marriage counsellor. Neither of these allegations, even if taken at their face value, fall within the ambit of Section 498A IPC. Significantly, as per Kanika herself, Anil Juneja never raised any demand or subjected her or her parents to harassment for arranging a lavish marriage. His alleged remark merely pointed out one aspect of the marriage function. Likewise, the other allegation that he advised Kanika to separate from Puneet or approach a marriage counsellor appears to be nothing more than routine advice given in the context of her troubled marital relationship. To attract the offence under Section 498A IPC, the allegations must be grave and serious in nature. Omnibus and casual accusations, without any element of cruelty or unlawful demand, are insufficient to prosecute a person under this provision. If such routine or casual conversations were to be brought within the fold of criminality, it would virtually render it impossible for the husband's family members to even interact with the daughter-in-law, as every spoken word could later be construed as a basis for criminal proceedings. To constitute an offence under Section 498A, it not mere bickering which would Digitally signed by A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 19/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:12:06 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.20
amount to an offence but it should be harassment of such a nature that would drive a woman to commit suicide.
25. No specific allegation or incidence of harassment or cruelty has been cited in the chargesheet against Veera Arora and Anil Juneja of a nature that would drive Kanika to commit suicide or cause bodily harm. The allegations made against them do not show that she was subjected to cruelty of such a nature so as to qualify as an offence under Section 498A IPC. Perusal of the record does not show grave suspicion, as is required for framing of a charge under section 498A IPC, arises against the revisionists Veera Arora and Anil Juneja.
26. SECTION 406 IPC, REVISIONISTS/ACCCUSED VEERA AND PUNEET ARORA ARE CHARGED UNDER THIS PROVISON:-
Firstly, it is imperative to examine the ingredients of this offence and whether the allegations made in the chargesheet, read on their face, attract this offence under the Penal Code.
" 405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
27. The essential ingredients for establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 IPC and punishable under Section 406 IPC with sentence for a period Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Page No. 20/31 AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. 17:12:13 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
21upto three years or with fine or with both, are:
[i] entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
[ii] the person entrusted with the property, dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
28. The Supreme Court in the matter of The Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. S.K. Roy 36 held that there are two distinct parts involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.
29. Now, let us examine, whether here, the chargesheet satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 406 IPC against accused Puneet and Veera. The chargesheet records that Puneet and Veera were allegedly in possession of Kanika's jewellery, which, despite her repeated requests, was not returned to her. However, a perusal of the chargesheet reveals that the basic ingredients of Section 406 IPC are conspicuously missing. There is no averment specifying when, how, or in what manner Kanika entrusted her stridhan or jewellery to these accused persons. At one place, she has merely stated that her jewellery is in the possession of Puneet and his family. It is well-settled that mere possession of property does not amount to entrustment, and Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 Page No. 21/31 17:12:20 +0530 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
22in the absence of any clear allegation of entrustment, the offence under Section 406 IPC cannot be said to be made out. In Velji Raghavji Patel Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1965 AIR 1433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that " it is not only the dominion which satisfy the requirement of Section 405 IPC but in order to establish "entrustment or dominion" over property to an accused person, mere existence of that person's dominion over property is not enough. It must be further shown that his dominion was the result of "entrustment", which here in the case before this court is absent.
30. Even if the possession of Kanika's jewellery by Puneet and Veera is assumed to constitute entrustment, the other essential ingredient of misappropriation, required to attract Section 406 IPC, is conspicuously absent from the chargesheet. There is nothing on record to suggest that either of these accused misappropriated or converted Kanika's "stridhan" for their own use. On the contrary, Kanika herself has stated that she was informed by the accused that her jewellery was lying in a locker. This statement itself indicates that the jewellery had not been misappropriated. Hence, there is no material whatsoever, even remotely, to show that Puneet or his mother misappropriated Kanika's property for their personal benefit. The Supreme Court in Onkar Nath Mishra & others V State (NCT of Delhi) & another 2008 AIR SCW 96 , quashed framing of charge under Section 406 IPC observing that from plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant therein, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint, taken on their face value, do Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 22/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr.
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:12:29 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
23not make out a prima facie case against the appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 IPC. Thus , here, in absentia of both essential ingredients of offence under section 406 IPC, that is, entrustment and misappropriation or conversion of Kanika's articles by accused Puneet and Veera Arora for their own use, no prima facie case is made out against them under this section.
31. At the outset, it is also necessary to deal with another aspect concerning the amount of Rs. 13,32,579/-, referred to in Kanika's complaint dated 22.10.2022. As per the complaint, when Kanika returned to India in September 2022, she learnt that, on the demand of Puneet and Veera, her mother had transferred Rs.13,32,579/- into the joint account of Puneet and Kanika maintained in Canada. Learned counsel for Kanika has vehemently argued that Puneet subsequently transferred this amount from the joint account to his personal account and thereby misappropriated the same for his own use, which, according to him, clearly attracts the offence under Section 406 IPC.
This Court finds no merit in the aforesaid contention for the same reasons already discussed. To attract an offence under Section 406 IPC, it is not sufficient that the property is entrusted to the accused for a specific purpose; it must further be shown that the accused acted with dishonest intention by misappropriating or converting the said property for his own use.
Digitally signed byA. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 23/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:12:36 +0530 24 Here, as per the chargesheet, Kanika's mother transferred Rs.13,32,579/- into the joint account of Puneet and Kanika for the purchase of a car in Canada. It is alleged that, after the parties separated, Puneet transferred the said amount into his personal account. However, such transfer does not ipso-facto establish dishonest intention to misappropriate. Dishonest intention can ordinarily be inferred from the circumstances, particularly where the victim demands return of the entrusted property and the accused refuses to comply. Here, as per the chargesheet itself, Kanika came to know about the transfer only after her return to India in September 2022, and there is not even a whisper of an allegation that she ever demanded return of the said money or that Puneet refused to do so. In these circumstances, dishonest intention on the part of Puneet cannot be inferred merely from the fact that the amount was shifted from the joint account to his personal account. Hence, one of the essential ingredients of misappropriation of entrusted property is absent from the given set of facts.
32. SECTION 420 IPC AGAINST PUNEET AND VEERA ARORA:-
Section 415 of IPC defines cheating which reads as under:-
" Cheating. --Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that Digitally signed by CHARU A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 24/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:12:43 +0530 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.25
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
The essential ingredients of the offense of cheating are:
1. Deception of any person
(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-
(i) to deliver any property to any person: or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."
33. Section 420 IPC defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which reads as under: -
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. --Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
34. To establish the offence of Cheating inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved:-
• The representation made by the person was false. • The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false.
• The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:12:49 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 25/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.26
• The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.
35. The following observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 336 with almost similar facts and circumstances may be relevant to note at this stage:-
" 6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of the complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Section 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petitioner against the accused person is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs. 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. It was pointed out that on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the consumer forum in relation to the claim of Rs. 4,20,0000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases of breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case, it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception that there was intention on behalf of the accused person to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under 420 IPC".
36. For this offence, the allegations against Puneet and Veera are that Kanika's mother transferred Rs.13,32,579/- into the joint account of Puneet and Kanika held in Canada, which, after their separation, Puneet immediately withdrew into his personal CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:12:57 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 26/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
27account and thereafter, without Kanika's consent or knowledge, closed the said joint account. Additionally, Puneet is also alleged to have forcibly taken out Kanika's mobile and phone from her purse. Puneet and Veera deserve to be discharged for this offence as well. There is not even an iota of allegation in the chargesheet that either of these accused, dishonestly induced Kanika's family to transfer amount of Rs. 13,32,579/- into the joint account of Puneet shared with Kanika with an intention to cause wrongful loss to her family. The chargesheet is completely silent on the issue of inducement by Puneet and Veera to Kanika's family to part with this money. I failed to understand, what benefit accused Veera would have arrived from this transfer in the joint account held by Puneet and Kanika, neither the said account is in her name nor she has any access to said account. So far as, Puneet is concerned, the prosecution has also failed to bring anything on record, even prima facie, to suggest that Puneet had any fraudulent or dishonest intention to cheat Kanika at the inception of the transaction/transfer. On the contrary, the admitted position is that he withdrew the amount only after the separation of the parties. With regard to taking out of Kanika's mobile and passport by Puneet, firstly, this per-se do not attract section 420 IPC, secondly, admittedly, Kanika has already lodged police complaint against him in Canada against him, who cannot be booked in different countries for the same offence. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are missing, and the case cannot be continued against Puneet and Veera under Digitally signed by this provision. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:13:06 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 27/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.
2837. Section 120-B IPC:- Accused Veera and Puneet Arora are booked under this provision:-
Section 120-B IPC provides punishment for criminal conspiracy defined under Section 120-A IPC. As per Section 120-A IPC, criminal conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do illegal act or by illegal means. The foundation of criminal conspiracy is existence of agreement between two persons. A case for criminal conspiracy cannot proceed against one accused remaining as the conviction of single accused for conspiracy is not permissible in law. In the case in hand, accused Veera Arora has been discharged for all the offences, she was booked for i.e. Section 498A/406/420 IPC, therefore, the case cannot proceed under Section 120-B IPC only against accused Puneet Arora.
38. REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 188 CR.PC THAT IS SANCTION FROM CENTRAL GOVT.
Bare perusal of this provision shows that sanction from central government is required if Indian citizens have committed an offence outside the territory of India.
Here, undisputedly, Puneet and his family are Indian citizens but Puneet was settled in Canada prior to marriage, therefore, within a week of his marriage he alongwith Kanika flew to Canada. As per chargesheet, every overt mentioned in the chargesheet against Puneet and his family, has occurred in Canada, still, in view of Rupali devi Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2019 (SC) 1790. Delhi court has jurisdiction to try this case. In Rupali devi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held since the cruelty is Digitally signed by A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL Page No. 28/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr. 17:13:14 +0530 29 continuing offence and part of the offence is considered to have taken place where the woman takes shelter after separation from her husband. Here, Kanika, after separation from Puneet in June 2022, lived in Canada for a brief period but in September 2022 she shifted to India/Delhi to her parental home, hence, despite absence of any overt act in India/ Delhi, the part of offence shall be considered to have committed within India, therefore, in view of Rupali Devi (Supra) Delhi court has jurisdiction to try this case. Relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under:-
"15.......The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well- being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:13:23 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 29/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.30
committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.
16......We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code."
39. In Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttrakhand (2022) 13 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the offence was not committed in entirety outside India, the proviso to Section 188 Cr. PC would not apply and thus no sanction would be necessary. In view of the discussion in preceding para that cruelty is continuing offence which as per Rupali Devi (supra), continues even at the place where the woman take shelter after separation from her husband, which in this case is in India/Delhi where Kanika's parents live and after her separation from Puneet, she took shelter. Hence, as part of the offence has taken place in India/Delhi, no sanction envisaged under section 188 CR.PC is required on the given facts and circumstances. Relevant portion of Sartaj Khan (supra) is reproduced as under:-
"....14. As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:13:31 +0530 A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 30/31 B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.31
looked into and tried by Indian courts. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188...."
40. In view of above discussion, the revision filed by revisionist Puneet Arora is partly allowed in respect of offences under section 406/420/34 IPC, however, in respect of offence under section 498A IPC against him, the impugned order is maintained.
The revisions filed by revisionists Veera Arora and Anil Juneja are allowed in entirety, consequently the impugned order is set aside in respect of both of them. Revisionists Veera Arora and Anil Juneja are directed to furnish bond under Section 437-A Cr. PC (New Section: 481 BNSS) for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each in the like amount.
Revision files be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back with copy of this order. This order be kept in all three revision files. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.08.23 17:13:38 +0530 Announced in the open (Charu Aggarwal) Court on 23.08.2025. ASJ-02/E-COURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.
A. Cr. Rev. No. 253/2024 - Puneet Arora Vs. State and anr. Page No. 31/31B. Cr. Rev. No. 254/2024 - Anil Juneja Vs. State and anr. C. Cr. Rev. No. 256/2024 - Veera Arora Vs. State and anr.