[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
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
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.
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
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
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
