Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19626 (DEL)

XYZ v. STATE OF DELHI & ORS.

CRL.M.C./7082/2026 · 2026-09-22

Sanjeev Narula

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL.M.C. 7082/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010453642026 + CRL.M.C. 7082/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29562/2026 XYZ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Hemant Kumar, Mr. Kulbhushan Singh and Ms. Aarushi Kulshreshta, Advocates with Petitioner-in-person. versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate for State. S.I. Ankit Sharma, P.S. Fatehpur Beri. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 22.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 assails the order dated 7th August, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-05, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 239/2024, as well as the order on charge dated 6th March, 2024, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in proceedings arising from FIR No. 128/2021 registered at P.S. Fatehpur Beri. 2. At the outset, counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions from the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:15:57 CRL.M.C. 7082/2026 Page 2 of 4 Petitioner, who is present in Court, states that the petition is not pressed insofar as Respondent No. 4, Ms. Neha Sharma, is concerned. Respondent No. 4 is accordingly deleted from the array of parties. 3. The controversy which survives concerns allegations made by the Petitioner against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had initially approached P.S. Bisrakh, Greater Noida, alleging commission of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, by Respondent No. 2 and offences under Sections 354A/354B IPC by Respondent No. 3. No FIR was registered on that complaint and, according to the Petitioner, the complaint was subsequently withdrawn, which was recorded by way of a GD entry dated 5th September, 2020. 4. Shortly thereafter, on returning to her parental home in Delhi, the Petitioner approached the CAW Cell on 7th September, 2020. That complaint contained allegations of matrimonial cruelty as well as the aforesaid allegations of sexual offences and eventually led to registration of FIR No. 128/2021 dated 3rd April, 2021 at P.S. Fatehpur Beri under Sections 498A/406/506/354/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. By order dated 6th March, 2024, the Trial Court directed framing of charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC against the accused persons and additionally under Section 406 IPC against accused Geeta. 5. The Petitioner was aggrieved by the refusal to frame charges under Section 376 IPC against Respondent No. 2 and Sections 354A/354B IPC against Respondent No. 3. The Trial Court declined to proceed in respect of those allegations on the ground that the incidents were alleged to have 1 “BNSS” 2 “IPC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:15:57 CRL.M.C. 7082/2026 Page 3 of 4 occurred at the matrimonial home in Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, outside its territorial jurisdiction. The Revisional Court affirmed that view by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2026. 6. After addressing submissions for some time, counsel for the Petitioner states, on instructions, that the Petitioner does not wish to press the challenge to the impugned orders and would instead pursue such remedies as may be available to her before the competent forum in Uttar Pradesh. He accordingly seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty in that regard. Counsel also points out that the Petitioner has, in the meanwhile, been pursuing the matter before the Courts in Delhi and requests that the time spent in these proceedings be appropriately taken into account if she is required to approach the competent forum afresh. 7. In view of the statement made on behalf of the Petitioner, it is unnecessary for this Court to examine the correctness of the view taken in the impugned orders on territorial jurisdiction. The petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of such remedy as may be available to her in law before the competent authority or Court in Uttar Pradesh in respect of the allegations concerning Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 8. If any question of limitation arises in such proceedings, it shall be open to the Petitioner to seek exclusion of the period spent in pursuing her remedies in Delhi, including under Section 470 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the corresponding provision, Section 516 of the BNSS, as may be applicable. Any such plea shall be considered by the competent Court on its own merits and in accordance with law, having due regard to the period during which the Petitioner pursued the allegations through FIR No. 128/2021 and the proceedings arising therefrom before the Courts in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:15:57 CRL.M.C. 7082/2026 Page 4 of 4 Delhi. 9. It is also clarified that neither the present order nor the impugned orders, insofar as they decline to proceed in respect of the aforesaid offences for want of territorial jurisdiction, shall be read as an adjudication on the merits of those allegations. All rights and contentions in that regard are left open. 10. The petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:15:57