Delhi District Court
Pawan Kumar Jain (Sr. Citizen) vs State on 22 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
REVISION NO.01
Crl.Rev.No.210/2024
CNR No.DLSH01-006252-2024
Pawan Kumar Jain ................Revisionist
S/o Late Sh. Sagar Chand Jain
R/o H.No.528/1A, Bara Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Versus
(1) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...........Respondents
(2) Shilpa Jain W/o Sh. Aditya Jain D/o Late Sh. Mahaveer Prasad Bansal R/o H.No.882-B, Top Floor, Street No.7, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Date of institution : 23.09.2025
Date of final decision : 22.01.2026
Final decision : Dismissed
REVISION NO.02
Crl.Rev.No.209/2024
CNR No.DLSH01-006251-2024
Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.1 of 24
Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.1 of 24
Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.1 of 24
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:22:47
+0530
Rani Jain ................Revisionist
W/o Pawan Kumar Jain
R/o H.No.528/1A, Bara Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Versus
(1) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...........Respondents
(2) Shilpa Jain
W/o Sh. Aditya Jain
D/o Late Sh. Mahaveer Prasad Bansal
R/o H.No.882-B, Top Floor,
Street No.7, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Date of institution : 23.09.2025
Date of final decision : 22.01.2026
Final decision : Dismissed
REVISION NO.03
Crl.Rev.No.45/2025
CNR No.DLSH01-001121-2025
Shilpa ................Revisionist
W/o Aditya Jain
R/o 882-B, Top Floor,
Street No.7, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Versus
(1) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...........Respondents
Through Ld. Chief Prosecutor
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi.
Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.2 of 24
Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.2 of 24
Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.2 of 24
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.01.22
17:22:53 +0530
(2) Aditya Jain
S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain
R/o 528/1-A, Bada Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
(3) Rani Jain
W/o Sh. Pawan Jain
R/o 528/1-A, Bada Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
(4) Pawan Jain
S/o Late Sh. Not Known
R/o 528/1-A, Bada Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Date of institution : 02.07.2025
Date of final decision : 22.01.2026
Final decision : Dismissed
INTRODUCTION
1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall decide these three revision petitions filed under Section 438 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') which has arisen out of order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Ld. MM (Mahila Court - 01), SHD, KKD Courts, Delhi. The revisionist of revision no.01 ( hereinafter referred to as revisionist no.01) and revisionist of revision no.02 (hereinafter referred to as revisionist no.02) are accused before Ld. Trial Court whereas revisionist of revision no.03 (hereinafter referred to as revisionist no.03) is complainant before Ld. Trial Court. The revisionist no.01 and revisionist no.02 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of revisionist no.03 and further respondent no.02 (hereinafter referred to as husband) of revision no.03 is the husband of revisionist no.03. It is apposite to mention here that revisionist no.03 filed appeal, however, since it Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.3 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.3 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.3 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:22:59 +0530 has arisen out of same order qua which revisionist no.01 and 02 has filed revision, the appeal of revisionist no.03 was also treated as revision by Ld. Predecessor Court and by this Court. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order has discharged revisionist no.01 and 02 along-with husband for offence punishable under Section 406 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC), however, has ordered all of them to be charged for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The revisionist no.01 and 02 have prayed for setting-aside even order of framing of charge against them for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. On the other hand, the revisionist no.03 has filed this petition challenging the impugned order qua discharge of respondent no.01 and 02 along- with husband for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and has prayed for setting-aside the impugned order to the extent of their discharge for punishable under Section 406 IPC. GROUNDS OF REVISIONS OF REVISIONIST NO.01 & 02
2. In gist, the grounds of the revisions of revisionist no.01 and no.02 are that the impugned order is unjust and has been passed without application of judicial mind as far as offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is concerned. The allegations of complainant in the complaint upon which FIR was registered and her subsequent statements do not attract offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against them. There is no material on record to show any harassment being committed by them upon revisionist no.03 for purpose of coercing her to meet their demands. The revisionist no.01 is around 75 years of age. The revisionist no.01 and 02 were not even summoned upon Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.4 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.4 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.4 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:10 +0530 similar allegations in Domestic Violence Act case. The revisionist no.01 and 02 have prayed for setting-aside the impugned order to the extent of ordering of framing charge against them for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
GROUNDS OF REVISIONS OF REVISIONIST NO.03
3. In gist, the grounds of revision of revisionist no.03 are that the impugned order is bad in law to the extent of discharging revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Ld. Trial Court failed to take into consideration three essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, they being entrustment, dishonest misappropriation and violation of trust. There was implied entrustment for safe custody of entire jewelry and other streedhan articles of revisionist no.03 with the revisionist no.01, 02 and husband in the matrimonial home. They refused to return those articles before CAW Cell resulting in breach of trust. The impugned order of Ld. Trial Court therefore needs to be set-aside as far as discharge of revisionist no.01, 02 and husband for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is concerned. It is prayed that impugned order be set-aside to that extent and it be directed that charge for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC be also framed against revisionist no.01 & 02 and husband.
4. Both side have filed responses to the petitions of each other wherein they have averred impugned order to be correctly passed to the extent it has been passed in their favour and to be incorrect to the extent it is adverse to their interest and Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.5 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.5 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.5 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:15 +0530 have further prayed for dismissal of petitions of each other. SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 5.1 The submissions/contentions of revisionist no.01 and 02 are that impugned order qua ordering framing of charge against them for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is not sustainable in law. There are no specific allegations against revisionist no.01 and 02 of harassment of complainant of any type or subjecting complainant to any cruelty. The revisionist no.03 has leveled only general allegations against revisionist no.01 and 02 in her complaint to CAW Cell upon which FIR was registered and they do not attract offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. So, the revisionist no.01 and 02 were liable to be discharged by Ld. Trial Court, therefore, impugned order to the extent of ordering framing of charge under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC against them should be set-aside. It is also submitted that impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is correct to the extent of discharge of revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC as no entrustment of any valuable property of complainant could be inferred from complaint of the complainant to have been made to revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband. It is also additionally submitted that revision petition of revisionist no.03 is time barred and is liable to be dismissed on that account also. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist no.01 and 02 has relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam" AIR 2005 SC 3100, "Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr." 2010 (7) SCC 667 and of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter of "Sukhbir Jain & Anr.
Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.6 of 24
Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.6 of 24
Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.6 of 24
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.01.22
17:23:22 +0530
Vs. State" 1993 JCC 01 (Del HC) in support of their contentions. 5.2 On the other hand, the contentions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist no.03 are that there are sufficient allegations against revisionist no.01 and 02 in the complaint of the complainant (revisionist no.03) qua offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. There are specific allegations against whole of in-laws family for pressurizing her in relation to money. There are allegations that husband used to give beatings to complainant (revisionist no.03) and revisionist no.01 and 02 used to ignore complaints of complainant (revisionist no.03) qua same to them. It shows their silent support to the beatings being given to complainant (revisionist no.03) by husband. There are also specific allegations against revisionist no.02 that she used to demand gifts and other articles on each occasion vide providing list of articles to be brought by complainant (revisionist no.03). There are also allegations that revisionist no.01 and 02 along- with husband shouted at complainant in presence of her Chacha Sasur when he came to solve differences between them. There are also specific allegations that revisionist no.02 used to taunt complainant (revisionist no.03) for having brought nothing in dowry particularly for her daughters. The revisionist no.01 was also part of the whole affair when complainant (revisionist no.03) left her matrimonial home on 09.11.2020, she was made to write down as to what she was taking along-with her at the time of leaving matrimonial home and her video was also prepared. It amounts to mental torture/cruelty covered within Section 498A IPC. So, the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court of ordering framing of charge for offence punishable under Section 498A Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.7 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.7 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.7 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:28 +0530 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against revisionist no.01 and 02 is correct, hence, is liable to be upheld. The revisionist no.03 was given many jewelry articles and other valuable articles of use at the time of marriage. Same were kept in matrimonial home under the dominion of revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband. The revisionist no.03 stayed in matrimonial home for around one year. When she left matrimonial home on 09.11.2020, she was allowed only to carry handful of jewelry articles that too after preparing their list. The remaining jewelry and other valuable articles remained in possession of the revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband. The revisionist no.03 provided list of such articles before CAW Cell, out of same, some articles were returned before CAW Cell admitting them to be available with them, however, remaining articles still remain entrusted with revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband which they have not returned back till date. It is the contention of revisionist no.03 that the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court to the extent of discharging revisionist no.01 and 02 and husband is liable to be set-aside and it be directed that charge for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC be framed against them, as at the stage of framing of charge, only prima-facie case needs to be seen instead of meticulous examination of the allegations and material available. It is also contended that revisionist no.03 had no occasion to make submissions before Ld. Trial Court at the time of passing of impugned order as she was not given notice to appear for same. It is contended that though the impugned order was passed on 24.06.2024, however, revisionist no.03 came to know about same only on 09.11.2024 Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.8 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.8 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.8 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:34 +0530 when she received notice of Court of revisions of revisionist no.01 and 02, she immediately applied for certified copy of order of same, it was received on 16.01.2025 and petition was promptly filed by her on 24.02.2025, therefore, delay in filing her petition be condoned. Ld. Counsel for revisionist no.03 has relied upon decisions of "Rani Vs. Rakesh" Crl.M.C. 540/2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 04.07.2023, "Kalyaperumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" (2004) 9 SCC 157, "Girdhar Shankar Tawde Vs. State of Maharashtra" (2022) 5 SCC 177 and "Vemuri Venketeshwara Rao Vs. State of Andhtra Pradesh" (2012) 11 SCC 296 in support of their contentions. 5.3 Submissions of both side considered. Records perused.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS/DECISION 6.1 It would be appropriate to first consider the issue of limitation qua revision petition no.03. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sheoraj Singh Through LRs and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr." dated 09.10.2023, Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 has observed as under : -
"16. ................This Court opined that legislature had conferred power under section 5 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on "merits". It was further held that the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. Despite the liberal approach being adopted in such matters, which was termed justifiable, this Court lamented that the message had not percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy and, accordingly, emphasis was laid on the Courts adopting a (1987) 2 SCC 107. liberal and justice- oriented approach. The following passage from the decision Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.9 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.9 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.9 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:41 +0530 is reflective of this Court's realization that :
"3. [...] And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." (bold in original)."
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy", AIR 1998 SC 3222 has observed as under : -
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest republicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of The Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.10 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.10 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.10 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:47 +0530 The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of "State of U. P. Vs. Gauri Shanker & Ors.", 1992 ALJ 606 has observed as under : -
"6. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 of the code is a sort of special jurisdiction somewhat similar to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. That power can be exercised suo-moto also. This court, therefore, gets the power to condone the delay so as to enable it to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
As the revision is the power of the court and not of a litigant, the strict rules of limitation need not apply. In other words, it is for the High Court or Court of Session to decide as to whether to exercise jurisdiction or not. This revisionary power is discretionary and unfettered by limitation.
12. In such matter of considerable magnitude, court need not be technical
13. The expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 Limitation Act has to be scrutinised in a justice oriented manner and narrow pedantic approach need not be made. Explanation of each day's delay is not a correct formula in every case."
6.2 There is certainly no straight jacket formula to decide the issue of condonation of delay applicable to each and every case. Each case needs to be decided according to existence or absence of sufficient cause/explanation provided in such matter. Suffice to say Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 must receive a liberal interpretation to advance legal remedy/substantial justice and delays in preferring a revision or appeal should ordinarily be condoned in the larger interest of justice, provided no gross or deliberate negligence or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. The approach need to be pragmatic keeping in mind that substantive right of any party is not defeated simply on technical Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.11 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.11 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.11 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:23:56 +0530 grounds. It has also to be kept in mind that in a case of revision, it is the power of the Court which could be exercised even suo- moto by the Court to correct any illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order and further strict rules of limitation does not apply to same. In the present case in hand, it is averred that the revisionist no.03 was not present before Ld. Trial Court at the time of passing of impugned order. Revisionist no.03 came to know about the order only on receipt of notices of revision no.01 and 02, thereafter, she applied for certified copy and promptly filed her petition. Considering the averments of the application under Section 5 of The Limitation Act and the interest of justice, application under Section 5 of The Limitation Act stands allowed. Delay in filing of revision no.03 stands condoned.
7.1 Before proceeding further to decide the present revision petitions, it would be apposite to note down the relevant Section 438 of BNSS which rules the sphere of revisional jurisdiction.
"438. 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 his own bond or bail 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 Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.12 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.12 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.12 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:03 +0530 Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 439. (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 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."
7.2 Since, Section 438 BNSS is verbatim reproduction of Section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) which was replaced by BNSS, therefore, decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and of Hon'ble Apex Court in reference to Section 397 Cr. P.C. would be guiding lamp post for decision of petitions/applications under Section 438 BNSS also. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander" (2012) 9 SCC 460 has made following observations qua revisional jurisdiction :-
"8. .....Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.13 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.13 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.13 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:16 +0530 jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie............"
7.3 So, in view of above reproduced provision and cited case law, it is clear that the object of provisions of revision is to set-right patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Revisional jurisdiction could be invoked where decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is no compliance of provisions of law or the finding recorded is based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Revisional jurisdiction is of limited nature and cannot be exercised in routine manner. There is one inbuilt restriction provided that it cannot be exercised against an interlocutory order.
8.1 It is also well-settled vide various judicial pronouncements that there are three kinds of orders which can be passed by Court i.e., final orders, intermediate orders and interlocutory orders. The distinction between these three categories of orders and concept of intermediate order has been clearly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation"
(2017) 14 SCC 809 as following : -
"16. There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass - final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction-that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.14 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.14 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.14 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:22 +0530 revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.......
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima-facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue."
8.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made following observations in matter of "Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana"
(1977) 4 SCC 137 as to what constitutes an interlocutory order : -
"6. ......It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the CRL.M.C. 4267/2019 Page 7 of 15 parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.15 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.15 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.15 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:28 +0530 to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
8.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "K. K. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat" (2000) 6 SCC 195 has laid down following test qua interlocutory order : -
"11. That apart, the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that no revision was maintainable on account of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code, is clearly erroneous. It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandev Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
8.4 In view of the above discussed case law, it emerges that final orders are those orders which conclusively decide the rights of the parties, leaving nothing further to be adjudicated. Interlocutory orders are those which are purely temporary or procedural orders which do not touch upon or decide the substantive rights or liabilities of the parties and revision petition against such orders is barred under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Intermediate orders are orders which fall between the above two Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.16 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.16 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.16 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:35 +0530 categories. Though interlocutory in form, they assume the character of finality if reversed. The crucial test is whether the reversal of such an order would bring the proceedings to an end or not. Thus, while purely interlocutory orders cannot be assailed by way of revision petitions, final and intermediate orders fall within the revisional jurisdiction. 8.5 Keeping in mind above, if present petitions are considered, they have been filed against order dated 24.06.2024 of Ld. Trial Court vide which Ld. Trial Court discharged revisionist no.01 and 02 for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and charged them for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC along-with husband. At alter of test of nature of order, in the opinion of this Court, the order assailed vide present petitions is an intermediate order which if reversed could bring the proceedings to an end against the revisionist no.01 and 02 and further it has resulted in end of proceedings against revisionist no.01 and 02 along-with husband for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, therefore, revision petitions are maintainable. Reliance can be placed upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" (2017) 14 SCC 809 cited above. Hence, now this Court proceeds further to decide the petitions on merits.
9.1 Since, these petitions are against the order of Ld. Trial Court upon charge, therefore, it would also be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue before deciding the rival conditions of both side.
9.2 In the matter of "Union of India, Appellant Vs.
Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.17 of 24
Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.17 of 24
Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.17 of 24
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.01.22
17:24:42 +0530
Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another" AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366 (1) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed : -
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge : -
(i) 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;
(ii) 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.
(iii) the test of 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.
(iv) that in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mount-piece 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."
9.3 In the matter of "Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra" (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 135 and in the matter of "Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation"
(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated above-said case law.
9.4 In the matter of "State Vs. Arun Kumar and Another" (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed : -
Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.18 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.18 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.18 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:50 +0530 "9. This court then went to cull out principles as regards scope of Sections 227 and 228 of I.P.C., which in our view broadly apply to Sections 238 and 239 of the Code as well.
It was observed thus in para 21 : (Sajjan Kumar Case, SCC pp. 376-77) "Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.PC
21. On Consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge : -
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.PC 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. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The court 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, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.19 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.19 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.19 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:24:57 +0530 broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of the them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
9.5 In the matter of "Asim Shafiff Vs. National Investigation Agency" (2019) 7 SCC 148, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under : -
"19. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 Cr.P.C. pertaining to warrant cases) 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; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, 3 2018(13) SCC 455 4 2019(6) SCALE 794 the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record."
9.6 In view of above-said guiding lamp post judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the matter of consideration on charge, it is clear that at the time of consideration on charge, Court has to see whether there is prima-facie case against the accused person(s) for a particular offence or not and even where there is grave suspicion of commission of offence qua which Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.20 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.20 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.20 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:25:04 +0530 there is no reasonable explanation, the Court is well within its right to frame charge against the person(s). At the stage of framing of charge, the Court need not delve into realm of whether the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt as that determination comes at a later stage i.e. after conclusion of the trial. A strict standard of proof is not required while evaluating the material on record for purpose of framing of charge, however, there must exist prima-facie ingredients of offence for which a person is sought to be charged.
9.7 Keeping in mind above law, it is noted that in complaint dated 31.03.2021 made to CAW Cell by revisionist no.03 upon which FIR was registered, the revisionist no.03 had made allegations of forcing her to part with her salary by her in- laws which in natural corollary would mean revisionist no.01, 02 and husband. She has also leveled allegations against her husband of giving beatings to her and the silence of revisionist no.01 and 02 on being complained about same. She has also leveled allegations against revisionist no.02 of handing over of list of articles to be brought by her on each and every festivity. She has also leveled allegations against revisionist no.01 & 02 and husband having made her to write list of articles which she was taking along at the time of her leaving of matrimonial home on 09.11.2020. She has also leveled allegations against revisionist no.01 & 02 of having not allowed her brothers to enter their home when they visited them to work out a compromise in this matter. She has also leveled allegations against revisionist no.02 of passing taunts for not having brought enough dowry and anything for her daughters. The said allegations certainly falls in Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.21 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.21 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.21 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:25:11 +0530 category of physical and mental cruelty and of harassment of revisionist no.03 and her relatives for fulfillment of unlawful demands. Considering these allegations and the fact that only a prima-facie case needs to be seen at the time of framing of charges, no meticulous and minute evaluation of evidence is required at the stage of framing of charges, therefore, this Court sees no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order of charging revisionist no.01 & 02 for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Coming to the allegations of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, it was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist no.03 that the revisionist no.03 has stated in her complaint dated 31.03.2021 that her remaining articles/streedhan are still lying in her matrimonial home. She has also stated in said complaint that many of the articles purchased by her are still lying in matrimonial home. Revisionist no.03 presented list of articles which were given in marriage including jewelry and other valuable articles before CAW Cell. Only some of them were returned by revisionist no.01 and 02 and by husband before CAW Cell. The remaining articles of those lists are still lying with them in matrimonial home. It is contended that jewelry articles and other valuable articles which were given at the time of marriage were impliedly entrusted with them, many of them have not been returned despite being demanded before CAW Cell, therefore, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC are also available against them. This Court has considered the said contentions of revisionist no.03. In the opinion of this Court, there could not be any entrustment of Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.22 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.22 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.22 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:25:18 +0530 expenditure which was done on various functions related to marriage and customary gifts exchanged on marriage. The other valuable articles given in dowry for use even if lying in the matrimonial home where revisionist no.03 lived for around one year as averred would also not fall in the category of articles being entrusted to revisionist no.01, 02 and husband. The entrustment certainly implies entrusting someone with some property or with dominion of property with some specific purpose. The offence of 406 IPC is completed if the person who is entrusted with property or with dominion of property misappropriates it or converts it to his own use or dispose-off it etc. etc. against express or implied mode of discharge of said trust. In such matrimonial cases, there must be specific allegations of entrustment of any property by complainant to her in-laws/her husband and they must have used it or dispose-off it or have refused to return it despite being demanded. In present case, there being no specific allegations of entrustment of any article(s) by complainant in her complaint dated 31.03.2021, therefore, there is no prima-facie case for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC against revisionist no.01 & 02 and husband. Merely because some of the articles which were given as gift are with the revisionist no.01 & 02 and husband and further some of articles of use are still lying in matrimonial home as per submissions of revisionist no.03, the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC would not be attracted. Hence, this Court also finds no illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court discharging revisionist no.01 & 02 and husband for 406 IPC. In view of all above discussions, Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.23 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.23 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.23 of 24 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.01.22 17:25:25 +0530 all three petitions are liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Hence, stands dismissed.
10. Files be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Copy of this order be placed on records of Ld. Trial Court for necessary information and record purposes. Trial Court record be sent back immediately. Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH Announced in the open Court SINGH Date:
2026.01.22 on 22.01.2026. 17:25:31 +0530 (HARVINDER SINGH) ASJ (FTC)/Shahdara, KKD/Delhi/22.01.2026 Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.210/2024 Page No.24 of 24 Rani Jain Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.209/2024 Page No.24 of 24 Shilpa Vs. State & Anr. Crl.Rev.No.45/2025 Page No.24 of 24