Delhi District Court
Arshad Ali Siddiqui vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010035462026
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 141 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
1) Arshad Ali Siddiqui,
S/o. Shri Taj Ali Siddiqui,
R/o. 120-B, Street No. 20, Zakir Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi - 110025.
2) Zeenat Siddiqui
W/o. Arshad Ali Siddiqui,
R/o. 120-B, Street No. 20, Zakir Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi - 110025. .......Revisionists
Versus
1) STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
2) YP
D/o. MEH,
(complete name withheld to protect her identity,
........Respondents
CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 1 of 7
Instituted on : 27.03.2025
Reserved on : Not Reserved
Pronounced on : 01.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 CrPC (corresponding to Section 438 BNSS) assailing the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court (JMFC, Mahila Court-03), South-East District, Saket Courts (in CR. Case No. 3365/2024, State Vs. Arshad Ali Siddiqui, FIR No. 478/2023, PS Jamia Nagar), whereby the revisionists were discharged for offences punishable under Sections 354/354C/354D IPC but were directed to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 506/509/34 IPC in FIR No. 478/2023, PS Jamia Nagar.
2. The necessity of filing the present revision arises from the grievance of the revisionists that despite absence of sufficient material and the alleged civil nature of dispute between the parties, the Ld. Trial Court erred in proceeding against them for the aforesaid offences. It is contended that the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind, ignores material inconsistencies and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the present FIR was registered with lot of delay and only as a counter blast to the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by concerned Court in Civil Suit wherein the complainant and her family member admitted the CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 2 of 7 tenancy and undertook to pay the electricity dues and the monthly rent to the revisionists who are her landlord. It is further contended that apart from statement of complainant and her mother, there is no independent material to support the allegations as made in the FIR. Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs. State 2007 SCC Online Del 606 in support of his submissions.
3. Per contra, Ld. APP for State seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that same is devoid of any merit.
4. The record reflects that the FIR dated 21.10.2023 came to be registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix alleging incidents dated 23.07.2023 and 29.08.2023. It is alleged therein that the revisionists, being landlord and his wife, forcibly entered the tenanted premises, hurled filthy abuses, extended threats and indulged in acts causing humiliation to the complainant and her mother. The complainant has further alleged that on one of the occasions, the accused entered the house when she was alone and intruded into the bathroom area, thereby causing fear, embarrassment and indignity.
5. The statements of the complainant and her mother recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose consistent allegations regarding use of obscene and abusive language (exact words / abuses narrated by complainant), threats of dire consequences and acts intended to CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 3 of 7 humiliate them within the residential premises. These allegations stand further reiterated in the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein the complainant and her mother have elaborated upon the conduct of the accused persons, including repeated use of filthy abuses and intimidation.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court has minutely examined the material on record and has consciously arrived at the conclusion that the ingredients of offences under Sections 354/354C/354D IPC are not made out, and accordingly discharged the revisionists for the said offences. However, the Court found that there exists sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the revisionists for offences under Sections 506/509/34 IPC inasmuch as the allegations disclose use of filthy language, threats and conduct intended to insult the modesty of the complainant and her mother.
7. The principal contention of the revisionists is that the present case arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute and is essentially civil in nature relating to non-payment of rent, and therefore the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process of law. It has been further contended that the FIR has been lodged belatedly as an afterthought to avoid eviction and payment of arrears of rent. It is also argued that there is no independent corroboration and the entire case rests upon interested witnesses, whose testimony is unreliable.
CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 4 of 7
8. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and has carefully perused the entire trial court record.
9. At the outset, it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations. The test to be applied is whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case or raises a strong suspicion against the accused. Even grave suspicion is sufficient to proceed further and the probative value of the material cannot be tested at this stage.
10. In the present case, the material placed on record, including the FIR and the statements of the complainant and her mother under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., clearly disclose allegations of abusive conduct and threats. The use of filthy and derogatory language directed towards a woman, coupled with threats of consequences, prima facie attracts the ingredients of Sections 509 and 506 IPC more so when the exact abuses hurled upon complainant and her mother were narrated by them. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
11. The contention that the dispute is civil in nature does not persuade this Court. It is no doubt true that the parties are in a CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 5 of 7 landlord-tenant relationship and there appears to be a dispute regarding payment of rent. However, the existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences. The law is well settled that civil and criminal remedies can coexist and the mere availability of a civil remedy is not a ground to quash or stifle criminal prosecution at the threshold.
12. The argument regarding delay in lodging the FIR also does not advance the case of the revisionists at this stage. The aspect of delay and its explanation are matters to be tested during trial. Similarly, the absence of independent witnesses cannot be a ground for discharge when the statements of the complainant and her mother themselves constitute substantive material for the purpose of framing charge.
13. It is also significant to note that the Ld. Trial Court has already exercised due caution by discharging the revisionists for more serious offences under Sections 354/354C/354D IPC after finding lack of sufficient material. The continuation of proceedings only for lesser offences under Sections 506/509/34 IPC demonstrates a balanced and reasoned approach, rather than any arbitrariness.
14. No material has been brought on record to show that the findings of the Ld. Trial Court are perverse, illegal or based on misreading of evidence. The impugned order reflects due application CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 6 of 7 of judicial mind and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
15. The scope of interference in revision is limited and this Court cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. In the absence of patent illegality or miscarriage of justice, the order of the Trial Court deserves to be upheld.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition. The impugned order dated 27.11.2025 is well reasoned and calls for no interference.
17. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. The judgment relied by Ld. counsel for revisionists is distinguishable in the factual matrix of the present case.
18. Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
Digitally signed by ANUJ AGRAWAL
19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. ANUJ AGRAWAL Date:
2026.04.01 12:19:44 +0530 Announced in the open (Anuj Agrawal) court on 01.04.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi CR No. 141/2026 Arshad Ali Siddiqui Vs. State Page No. 7 of 7