Delhi District Court
Abhishek Kumar vs Neha Lal on 24 December, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 125/2023
Abhishek Kumar
s/o Late Sh. R.K.N. Sinha
r/o E-203, Metro Vihar,
Arihant Marg, Mukundpur
Depot, Delhi.
............... Revisionist.
Versus
1. Neha Lal
d/o Late Sh. N.K. Lal
r/o B-340/11 Gyan Mandir
Road, Jaitpur, Badarpur,
Delhi-110044.
Also at:
C-2408, C Block near
Hanuman Mandir, Indira
Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
2. Dr. Vishal Chaturvedi
s/o Sh. Shashi Kant Chatruvedi
r/o 486, o Block, Tarapore Tower,
Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
...............Respondents.
Date of Filing : 23.05.2023
Date of arguments : 18.12.2024
Date of Order : 24.12.2024
ORDER
1. This revision is preferred u/s 397 Cr. PC against the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 passed by Ld. MM-02, Shahdara, KKD Courts, whereby the complaint case bearing VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:22:40 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 1/17 2 No. 1437/2016 titled Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. was dismissed.
2. Ld. counsel for revisionist has submitted that revisionist/complainant had filed the above said complaint case under Section 200 Cr. PC against the respondents before the Ld. MM concerned seeking initiating appropriate action under Section 191/193/194/195/196/197/199/200/201/ 203/211/471/503/120-b/34 IPC against respondents under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. It has been further submitted on behalf of complainant that he is residing at the address bearing no. C15, Ganga Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP also at E203, DMRC Staff Quarter, Mukund Pur, Delhi31. It is alleged that he got married with accused no. 1 Neha Lal on 28.01.2012, at Gaya Bihar which is his native place; that the marriage was solemnized through Kayastha Matrimonial. Com without any dowry demands; that all kinds of marriage arrangement were done by him and his relatives; that after marriage, complainant and accused no. 1 had started residing at Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, UP; that he has stayed with accused no. 1 alone only for 10 days and thereafter, his inlaws had resided together with them; that on 25.02.2012, he came to know that his wife/respondent no.1 got pregnant and both complainant, his wife and his relatives were happy with this but the mother of the respondent no. 1 was against the birth of his baby; that mother of respondent no. 1 had started pressurizing revisionist that respondent no. 1 will not VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR 17:23:20 +0530 Date: 2024.12.24 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 2/17 3 give the birth of his baby; that on 13.03.2012, revisionist made the phone call to the elder sister of respondent no. 1 and asked her help to save the life of his unborn baby through an SMS to her on 13.03.2012, but she did not turn up; that his mother in law was also started asking his ancestral property documents and started black mailing the revisionisti that he should transfer the said property in the name of respondent no. 1; that on 15.03.2012, revisionist went to Allahabad on his official tour then returned back on 27.03.2012 in the morning and went to office; that in the evening, revisionist returned back from his office and immediately left for Chandigarh for some official work; that respondent no. 1 along with her parents left her house on 02.04.2012, on false pretext, that they were going to their native place Bhagal Pur, Bihar for 10-15 days, which was communicated to the revisionist on phone; that thereafter revisionist asked the respondent no. 1 about his baby then she replied the revisionist over phone that she has aborted his baby, whereas he was totally against this; that while leaving the house of the revisionist, they have taken all the gold/silver jewellery, his official documents and Rs. 25,000/ cash and handed over the key of the house to security guard in his absence; that after leaving on 02.04.2012, respondent no. 1 started residing secretly on rent at PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi by changing her original identity and giving all kinds of false information with PS Pandav Nagar upon her tenant verification form; that thereafter, accused no. 1 started filing VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:23:34 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 3/17 4 false and fabricated complaints against him for dowry demands and forceful abortion; that on 14.05.2012, accused no. 1 has filed her first complaint before ACP CAW Cell, East Delhi, alleging that on 11.03.2012, revisionist had taken her to Shastri Park, Delhi where his elder sister has given her something to drink and her pregnancy got terminated; that thereafter, on 28.09.2012, respondent no. 1 has again filed a complaint before ACP, CAW Cell, East Delhi, in which she has stated that revisionist and his mother, elder sister and elder brother-in-law has given her medicine and her pregnancy got terminated at Shastri Park, Delhi on 11.03.2012; that Police has submitted the report stating that the respondent no. 1 had not gone to Shastri Park Delhi on alleged date i.e. 11.03.2012 as her mobile location has not found in Shastri Park Area; that meanwhile, she has also filed a false complaint before PS Madhu Vihar, Delhi regarding threatening her by the revisionist in DCP East Office, which was also turned out a false complaint after detailed investigation; that thereafter, respondent no. 1 has filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C by enclosing her medical prescription w.r.t. forceful abortion which belongs to Mumbai after 31 days of alleged abortion; that in this regard, Delhi Police had gone to Mumbai for the verification of said medical prescription, which was issued by Dr. Vishal Chaturvedi, respondent no. 2; that during investigation at Mumbai, Dr. Vishal told the Delhi Police that he was not maintaining the visitor / patient register as he was giving VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:23:44 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 4/17 5 treatment at his residence only; that Delhi Police has checked the visitor register of Tarapore Towers, Andheri West, Mumbai, which was the residence of respondent no. 2/Dr. Vishal; that the said visitor register dated 11.04.2012, 20.04.2012 and 05.05.2012, no entry was found in the name of respondent no. 1; that Delhi Police also checked the mobile call record of accused no. 1 and from the locations it has become clear that respondent no. 1 was roaming in NCR on those dates and submitted the detailed report before the court of CMM, East, Delhi and before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court; that accused no. 1 has not gone to Mumbai and used a false and fabricated medical evidence to implicate the parents of the revisionist as well as revisionist in a false case; thae the MMC registration of Dr. Vishal /respondent no. 2 was not valid and he was not at all legally entitled to issue such medical prescription/ documents; that both the respondents were in touch with each other much earlier to the marriage of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has knowingly misused his profession and issued a false medical evidence on the instance of respondent no. 1/Neha without any physical checking of patient /respondent no. 1; that both respondents have conspired against the complainant and his family members by knowingly fabricating, using the false and fabricated medical evidence.
3. After hearing submissions, matter was fixed for pre summoning evidence before the Ld. trial court. Upon completion of pre-summoning evidence, after hearing Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:23:52 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 5/17 6 arguments on the point of summoning, complaint was dismissed vide impugned order.
4. The revisionist has filed the present revision petition assailing the impugned order on the following grounds, which are summarized as under:
• Because the learned MM Court has refused and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it on the basis of "prima facie" by law, therefore, exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegalities. • Because the learned MM Court has completely misunderstood the stage for consideration before it after recording and examining the complainant/applicant and witnesses oath.
• Because the stage before the learned MM Court was issuance of process/summon and not the stage of cognizance after recording the statement of complainant and witness and examining them under oath.
• Because the learned MM Court made a mistake by not considering that the document was forged and fabricated prior to its filing before the Hon'ble Court and the proceeding is not pending.
• Because the learned MM Court has erred in ignoring the vital judicial evidences on record therefore the finding recorded upon the impugned order that there is no material on record for summoning the accused persons is completely wrong and incorrect.
• Because finding of fact contrary to the weight of the evidence is an error of fact therefore the impugned order Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:24:00 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 6/17 7 deserves to be set aside/quash and the revision application may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice. • Because the marshaling of the evidences on record is not done contrary to this pick and choose method was adopted to simply dispose of the application in a mechanical routine way resulted in serious injustice to applicant/complainant. • Because there is non-consideration of vital grounds and documents on record therefore the impugned order is perverse, whimsical, and against the principles of justice thus liable to be set aside.
• Because the criminal justice system is gender neutral. • Because if the accused no.1/Neha Lal will not be summoned/prosecuted against her deliberate and willful wrong done merely on the basis of her gender then this will embolden others to do like wise and make the mockery of the Justice department.
• Because there is clinching, convincing and cogent judicial evidences are available on record in support of complaint proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubts.
• Because the high-sounding principles of law that "everybody is equal before the law" cannot be used selectively for only a particular one.
5. It is noteworthy that none appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service and he failed to file any reply to the present revision. Thus, this court proceeded to adjudicate the present revision in his absence.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:24:10 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 7/17 8
6. Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 have been heard and record along with the impugned order have been perused.
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has advanced arguments on the line of grounds taken in the present revision. It has been vehemently argued that impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside, whereas on the other hand, Ld. counsel for R1 has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and Ld. trial court has correctly passed the same.
8. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to mention the relevant provisions from which this Court derives its power of revision and the same reads as under:
Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 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.
(3) If an application under this section has been VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:24:20 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 8/17 9 made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Section 399 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
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 a 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.
9. It was held in the matter of Taron Mohan Vs. State and anr. 2021 SCC Online Del. 312 that:
"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."
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:24:29 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 9/17 10
10. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ram Rao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke and ors. 2015 (3) SCC 123 observed as under:
"Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence."
11. First of all, it is worthwhile to mention that the power of revision of the court under Section 397 to 401 Cr. PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, which is under challenge by virtue of revision, is shown to be perverse or grossly erroneous or untenable in law or where the decision is based on no material or where material facts are ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised in an arbitrary manner, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. Thus, normally the revisional court while exercising its jurisdiction is not expected to substitute its own view in place of the view taken by the Court, whose order's legality is under challenge.
12. In the instant case, it is worthwhile to mention that a complaint u/s 200 Cr. PC for initiating appropriate action under various Sections of IPC was filed by the revisionist. By virtue of the said complaint, offences under Section VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:24:38 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 10/17 11 191 / 193 /194/ 195/ 196/197/199/200/201/203/211/471/503/ 120-B/34 IPC were alleged to have been committed by the accused persons/respondents. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for pre-summoning evidence and two witnesses were examined therein, upon which the matter was fixed for arguments on the point of summoning. Upon hearing the arguments, it was held by the Ld. trial court that no ground for summoning the accused persons was made out and thus, by way of impugned order, Ld. MM had dismissed the complaint.
13. At the outset, the short question involved in the present revision petition is whether the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Ld. MM suffers from any impropriety/ illegality or not.
14. The case of the revisionist is that respondent no.1 has filed false and frivolous case/FIR against him in which he was acquitted by the concerned court. It has been further stated that to prove her false allegation, respondent no.1 has brought false and fabricated medical document of forceful abortion from Mumbai issued by respondent no.2 Dr. Vishal Chaturvedi without her physical examination by the said doctor with intention to cause injury to revisionist, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge. In nutshell, the basic grievance of revisionist is that respondents have made false charge of offence and have instituted a false criminal proceedings against him with intention to cause injury to him, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge. Hence, the Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:24:54 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 11/17 12 revisionist has prayed to summon the respondents in order to prosecute them under various provisions of IPC mentioned above. However, Ld. trial court after hearing the arguments on the point of summoning, dismissed the complaint vide impugned order.
15. Primarily, it has been vehemently contended by the revisionist that the stage at which complaint was pending, was for issuance of process and not for taking cognizance, so Ld. trial court erred by observing that due to bar of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. PC, cognizance cannot be taken, as it had already been taken by the said court. It has been further contended that cognizance is taken at an initial stage when Magistrate peruses the complaint, whereas issuance of process is at a later stage after considering the material placed before it. However, the said contention does not have any merit in view of settled law. It may be said that cognizance has not been defined anywhere in the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, taking of cognizance does not involve taking of any formal action. It was held in Mohammad Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC420 that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since, it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts, which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with statements recorded or inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before criminal court.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:25:03
+0530
Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 12/17
13
Further, it is also settled law that whether the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, as no particular form is necessary. Thus, it is clear that it is not necessary that mere perusal of contents of complaint by Magistrate can be said to be taking of cognizance by him. In the case in hand, applying aforesaid settled law, it cannot be said that merely by perusing the contents of complaint, Magistrate had taken cognizance. Moreover, perusal of TCR also confirms the fact that the concerned court had not taken cognizance at an initial stage merely by going through the contents of the complaint as there is no express order on record in this regard.
16. Further, perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that Ld. trial court has observed therein that apart from Section 211 IPC, other offences alleged by the complainant are not made out from the case of complainant. Pertinently, upon going through the contents of the present revision, it is apparent that the said finding pertaining to offences other than Section 211 IPC has not been assailed therein at all. Thus, this court does not deem it fit to dwell on this aspect any further and no interference is required on this aspect in the impugned order.
17. As far as, summoning of accused u/s 211 IPC is concerned, Ld. trial court has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P. Kapoor 1967, AIR 1967 SC 528, wherein it has been held that the bar of section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C would be VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:25:16 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 13/17 14 attracted in a situation where the offence u/s 211 IPC is alleged to have committed in a proceeding which is pending in any court or which had already been concluded. Further, in the present case, respondent no.1 had instituted criminal proceeding in FIR No. 361/12, u/s 498A/406 IPC in PS Pandav Nagar, which resulted in acquittal of revisionist and since the said proceedings have already been concluded, the bar of section 195 (1)(b) Cr. P.C would be attracted and the Court could not have taken cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such Officer of the Court as that court may authorize in writing in this behalf. Suffice it to state that Ld. trial court has not erred by observing that due to the aforesaid bar, cognizance cannot be taken and respondents were correctly not summoned for Section 211 IPC in the present case.
18. Now coming to another limb of contentions raised on behalf of revisionist that the respondents may be summoned for Section 468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC as they have forged and fabricated the medical document of forceful abortion without physical examination of respondent no.1 and have used the said medical document in the proceedings of court. It is worthwhile to mention that the offences u/s 468/471 IPC are the species and the genus is the offence of forgery defined u/s 463 IPC, which is reproduced as under:
" Section 463.
Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:25:27 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 14/17 15 with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
19. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751. The relevant portion is referred hereunder:
"The condition precedent for an offence under section 467 and 471 IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
An analysis of section 464 IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', for the the purpose of forgery, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. "
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:25:36 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 15/17 16
20. However, in the case in hand, the medical prescription does not fall within any of the categories stated above so as to bring the said document in the ambit of forgery as defined in the preceding para. Perusal of the said medical document, which is part of trial court record as Ex. CW1/A4, reveals that the same is a medical prescription issued by respondent no.2 wherein some medicines have been prescribed and the same also mentions about the forceful abortion as stated by the patient Neha Lal. The case of revisionist is that the said document has been made by the respondent no. 2 without the examination of respondent no. 1 and respondent no.1 has used this document in court. Ld. counsel for revisionist has argued that since revisionist has been acquitted by the concerned court and has not relied upon the medical document prepared by respondent no.2, the said document is forged and fabricated. Pertinently, it has been correctly observed by concerned court that in FIR No. 361/12, there is nothing on record to suggest that medical document is forged and fabricated, but revisionist has been acquitted in the absence of any convincing and concrete proof in the said case. Further, Ld. trial court has correctly held that revisionist has not brought on record any independent material to make a prima facie case that the Ex.CW1/A4 is false and fabricated. Further, Ld. trial court has also correctly held that only on the basis of acquittal of revisionist from the concerned criminal case, this cannot be inferred that the medical document used by respondent no.1 and issued by respondent no.2 in the criminal case is forged and Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 17:25:47 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 16/17 17 fabricated. Thus, prima facie the said offences do not seem to be made out.
21. All the other grounds raised in the present revision by the revisionist are run of the mill ones and do not require attention of this court separately, more so, as they seem to have been covered under the contentions already taken up by this court in the preceding paras.
22. Therefore, considering the above discussion, it may well be stated that there is no impropriety or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference by this court and Ld. MM, by not summoning the respondents, has not committed any error in law. Suffice it to state that Ld. MM seems to have passed a well reasoned order, thereby dismissing the complaint.
23. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. A Copy of this order along with TCR be sent to the court of Ld. MM concerned.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR 17:25:56 +0530
Date: 2024.12.24
Announced in the open (Vineet Kumar)
Court on 24.12.2024. ASJ-02/E-COURT
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 125/2023 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Neha Lal and ors. Page no. 17/17