[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Neera Batra And Ors vs State Of Delhi And Ors on 30 January, 2026
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30th January, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 6726/2023, CRL.M.A. 25198/2023 & CRL.M.A.
25276/2023
NEERA BATRA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate with Ms.
Amol Kaur, Advocate
versus
STATE OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for
State/R-1 with SI Ramanuj, PS
Nangloi, Delhi
Mr. H.S. Gautam, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. On the basis of initial complaint of Mandeep Singh Batra (since
deceased), FIR No. 101/2008 was registered at PS Nangloi on 12.02.2008. It
was for commission of offences under Sections 447/448/468/471/34 IPC.
2. Charges have, reportedly, been framed under Section 447/34 IPC only.
3. During the pendency of the matter, complainant Mandeep Singh Batra
died on 10.10.2021.
4. When the matter was at the stage of Prosecution Evidence, his LRs moved
an application under Section 302 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.),
with the following prayers: -
"a) The LRs of the complainant be granted permission to prosecute the
present case against the accused persons,
b) Any other order as may be deemed fit and proper in view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances may also be passed in favour of the Complainant
and against the accused persons."
5. The aforesaid application was considered by the learned Trial Court on
18.08.2023 and was allowed. However, while allowing the aforesaid
application, the LRs were granted liberty to, merely, assist the learned
Prosecutor in ongoing trial.
6. The grievance in the present petition is very limited.
7. According to petitioners, they never sought any permission or liberty to
assist the learned Prosecutor. Rather, in terms of Section 302 of Cr.P.C.,
they wanted to do further prosecution, all by themselves.
8. It is submitted that though the learned Trial Court allowed the
application but it was not in consonance with the aforesaid provision. He
also submits that since Criminal Court cannot review its own order, he,
instead of filing any application before the same Court, has approached this
Court with request for requisite modification in the aforesaid order.
9. I have heard learned Addl. P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel
for the accused.
10. After hearing arguments for some time and with the consent of both the
sides, present petition is disposed of with direction to learned Trial Court to
consider the aforesaid application i.e. application moved under Section 302 of
Cr.P.C. afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides and
then to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
11. Needless to emphasize, this Court has not made any observation on
merits of the case, and it will be entirely upto the learned Trial Court to pass
appropriate order, albeit, in accordance with law.
12. In case of any further grievance, concerned party would be at liberty to
take appropriate judicial remedy.
13. Petition stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
14. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2026/dr/sa
