Satish Sharma & Anr v. State & Anr

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. AUGUST 05, 2025/R

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5261/2025, CRL.M.A. 22740-22741/2025 Pronounced on: 5th August 2025 SATISH SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Mr. Akshat Agarwal and Mr. Rishabh Mathur, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State with SI Ajay, PS Saket. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA 1. Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners for setting aside Order dated 29.05.2025 vide which learned ASJ upheld the Order of learned ACJM dated 09.10.2024 directing faming of Charges under Sections 506(1)/509/341/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts are that the Complainant/Respondent No.2 Ms. Krishna Sharma got married on 27.02.2020 with Amit @ Manoj S/o Satish @ Sanjay. She claimed that she faced domestic violence at the hands of her husband and her in-laws, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and she started living with her parents at her maternal house. She had filed a case at Mahila Police Station, Sector 35 Noida against her husband Amit @ Manoj (since deceased), her father-in-law Satish @ Sanjay (Petitioner No.1 herein) and brother-in-law Harshvardhan (Petitioner No.2 herein) and others. 3. She alleged in her Complaint that she came to know that her husband Amit @ Manoj was previously married to one Pooja D/o of Rambir Kaushik r/o Palwal, Haryana, and for this reason she came in contact with Rambir Kaushik. She further claimed that she also got information from Police Station Mahila Thana, Noida that her father in-law Satish @ Sanjay had moved an Application for Anticipatory Bail before the Court of learned ASJ, Saket Courts in Court Room No.311. She asked Rambir Kaushik to accompany her to Saket Courts. On 17.03.2024 at around 10:00 AM, she along with Rambir Kaushik reached outside Court Room No.311 of Saket Courts. Petitioners were already present there and on seeing her, they hurled abuses at her and also started making video. 4. She further alleged that Petitioner No.2 threatened her that if she does not withdraw the case, he would disrobe her there itself and she would not be able to face anyone. Seeing this, Rambir Kaushik tried to protest, but he was threatened to be killed. When he was going inside the Court Room, the Petitioners had held him by the collar and his neck and pushed him, because of which he fell on the floor. The Complainant then got frightened and ran away and the Petitioners continued to hurl abuses at her. Upon hearing the noise, she was called inside the Court Room by the learned Judge and in the meanwhile, Petitioners ran away from there. On her Complaint dated 18.03.2021, FIR No.0066/2021 was registered under Section 506/509/341/34 IPC at PS: Saket. Chargesheet has been filed. 5. On 03.06.2023, Petitioner No.1 had moved an Application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, but the same got dismissed by the learned ACMM vide Order dated 09.10.2024. 6. The Order on Charge was challenged before in the Revision before Ld. ASJ, who vide Order dated 29.05.2025, upheld the Order dated 09.10.2024 of the Ld. M.M. dismissing the Application of Petitioners for Discharge. This Order dated 29.05.2025 has been challenged on the grounds that the statement of the witnesses are prima facie false and the Learned ASJ has misconstrued the inconclusive CCTV footage dated 17.03.2021, as corroboration. 7. It is the specific case of prosecution, that as per the FIR dated 18.03.2021 that while going towards the Court Room, Rambir Kaushik was held by his collar and neck, then pushed to the ground. On the contrary, learned ASJ in Para 10 of his Order dated 29.05.2025 and learned Trial Court in Para 6 of its Order dated 09.10.2024, observed that no such incident has been recorded in the CCTV footage which is the basis of genesis of entire prosecution case. There is misapplication of Section 341 IPC as the allegation in the Charge Sheet asserts wrongful restraint bas