Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-10947-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10947-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Uploaded on: 18.04.2026
MEGHA ...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Petitioner in person with
Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Deepanshu Matya, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing order dated 06.06.2017 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram partly allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 169 dated 09.07.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sector 5, District Gurgaon and for quashing of order dated 17.01.2018 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dismissing the revision petition.
2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the petition are that petitioner lodged the aforementioned FIR against respondent No. 2, husband, alleging physical as well as mental cruelty. Investigation of the case was completed and charge sheet was filed by the police before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Trial commenced, prosecution concluded its evidence, whereafter statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.18 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10947-2018 (O&M) -2- recorded. When the case was at the stage of defence evidence, an application under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner for bringing on record following documents:
(a) Bank statement which shown Yatee school fees;
(b) Suicide note of Vipul brother's wife;
(c) Doctor prescription copy;
(d) Copy of bank statement which show ₹1,21,000/- FD cash given to Vipul family;
(e) Satyug Darshan school affidavit signed by Vipul
(f) Copy of Vipul cross-examination in case of Rs. 2,00,000/- recovery;
(g) Medical report of Vipul;
(h) Handwriting expert report;
(i) Copy of gift deed;
(j) Copy of court order Faridabad case in ₹70,000/-;
(k) Copy of cross examination of Vipul in 125 case;
(l) Copy of LIC
(m) School certificate copy of Satyug Darshan.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram partly allowed the application and permitted petitioner to place on record documents mentioned at Sr. No. (f), (j) and (k) pertaining to previous litigation between the parties.
4. Dissatisfied, petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, which was decided vide impugned order dated 17.01.2018. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition. Still aggrieved, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.18 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-10947-2018 (O&M) -3-
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, the police did not take into possession all relevant documents from the petitioner/complainant and it was only when her evidence was closed that she was apprised of the fact that Court would only consider documents which were on the record, whereafter she moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, partly allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. without appreciating the significance of the documents, which would strengthen the case of the prosecution. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram also erroneously dismissed the revision petition without considering the significance of the documents. He, thus prays that both orders dated 06.06.2017 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram and dated 17.01.2018 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram be set aside and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 refutes the submissions arguing that on March 3, 2018, documents mentioned at Sr. No. (a), (b),
(c), (g), (h) and (m) were given up by the petitioner before this Court. The documents sought to be produced were never made over to the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. The petitioner failed to elaborate as to why they were necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case. He further submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved not once, but for the second time. Order dated 06.06.2017 of learned JMIC, Gurugram was interlocutory in nature and no revision petition under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. was maintainable and in this context he referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.18 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10947-2018 (O&M) -4- Rajan Kumar Manchanda Vs. State of Karnataka 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 662, Sethuranam Vs. Rajamanickam 2010(5) RCR(Criminal) 512, judgment of this Court in Gajraj Vs. Ajay Raghav @ Bobby and others 2024 PHHC 125417, Rohit Uppal Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2017(20 RCR (Criminal) 310 and judgment of Allahabad High Court in Arun Kumar Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. 2013(18) RCR (Criminal) 809. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was also not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.
7. It is no longer res integra that an order determining an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature and remedy of revision is not available under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.[vide Sethuranam Vs. Rajamanickam(supra)]. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram dismissed on merits the revision petition challenging the interlocutory order dated 06.06.2017. Second revision petition against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram does not lie in view of specific bar envisaged by Section 397(3) Cr.P/C. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to invoke inherent jurisdiction of the Court would also, therefore, not be maintainable.
8. In Rajan Kumar Manchanda(supra), the petitioner moved an application for release of his truck, which was allowed by learned Magistrate. The State challenged the order before the Court of Sessions by filing a revision petition. The Revisional Court dismissed the petition of the State. A petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court by the State challenging the order. The High Court reversed the order of Magistrate. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
".......Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.18 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10947-2018 (O&M) -5- the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section 397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482. We are satisfied that this is a case where the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge is upheld."
9. Once the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the interlocutory order dated 06.06.2017 of learned JMIC, Gurugram has been dismissed, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Petitioner having availed the remedy of revision, cannot claim the relief by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Identical were the observation of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra).
10. The petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.
12. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.18 19:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document