[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Pratima Mahajan vs State (Nct Of Delhi ) And Ors on 21 January, 2026
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.01.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 528/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2125/2026 & CRL.M.A.
2126/2026
PRATIMA MAHAJAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Armaan Roop Sharma and Ms.
Priya Pachouri, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the
State with SI Rajak Ahmed, PS C.R.
Park
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Petitioner has sought to invoke powers of this Court under Sectoin
482 CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with regard to an
order passed by the Court of Sessions which was exercising revisional
jurisdiction.
2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, I am unable to
find the present petition maintainable. Rather, the present petition is
completely frivolous.
3. For convenience, the prayer clause of the petition is extracted below:-
"a) Allow the present petition and set aside the findings and
CRL.M.C. 528/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.21 18:06:48 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:21.01.2026
18:09:13
observations recorded in the Impugned Order dated 17.11.2025
in paragraphs no. 4, 5 and 6 passed by Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 477 /20224 titled as
'Pratima Mahajan vs. State & Ors.', and
b) Examine the legality and propriety of the Impugned Order
dated 17.11.2025 passed by Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. Additional
Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in
Criminal Revision No. 477/20224 titled as 'Pratima Mahajan
vs. State & Ors.', and
c) Call for and examine the Trial Court Record (TCR) in Ct
Case No. 2150 of 2022, titled as 'Pratima Mahajan vs. Subhash
Mohan Gangahar & Ors.', and
d) Direct the concerned police officials to investigate the matter
without any prejudice and register an F.I.R against the Accused
Persons under sections 316(2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2),
341 (1), 61(2), 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023; and
e) Direct the concerned police officials to investigate the matter
and submit the report before this Hon'ble Court, and
f) Pass such further orders as this Hon 'ble Court deem fit and
necessary in the interest of justice."
4. Despite being repeatedly called upon, learned counsel for petitioner is
unable to show any legal provision or judicial precedent which permits the
High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India and Section 482 CrPC to dissect a judicial order and set aside the
selected portions from the same. After addressing partly, learned counsel
for petitioner seeks permission to drop prayer clause (a).
CRL.M.C. 528/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.21 18:06:37 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:21.01.2026
18:09:13
5. Out of rest of the prayer clauses, only prayer clause (d) would be a
relief sought from the Court. The said relief is for directions to the local
police to register FIR for offences mentioned therein and to investigate the
same and file a report before this High Court. Even these reliefs cannot be
granted for the following reasons. Admittedly, the petitioner filed
application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was dismissed by the learned
trial magistrate and that dismissal was upheld by the Court of Sessions in
revision proceedings. The provision under Section 438(3) BNSS
categorically prohibits second revision proceedings. What is prohibited by
law cannot be given backdoor entry invoking inherent powers unless it is a
case of gross injustice. The present case does not fall in the category of gross
injustice because of the available remedy of continuing with the Complaint
Case, which in any case is pending before the magistrate.
6. Therefore, the present petition is completely frivolous and the same is
dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited within one week by the
petitioner online with www.bharatkeveer.gov.in. Accompanying applications
also stand disposed of.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for intimation.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.21 18:06:23 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 21, 2026
'rs'
CRL.M.C. 528/2026 Page 3 of 3 pages
