Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th April, 2026
RANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amol Acharya, Advocate with petitioner in person.
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State with
SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Bhajan Pura.
Mr. Pavitra Veer Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (through
V.C.)
JUDGMENT
1. When the present petition was taken up by this Court on 12.03.2026, the following facts, germane to the present petition, were captured. These are as under:-
7. The dilemma in the mind of the petitioner is very short and precise.
8. She feels that while remanding the matter, the learned First Appellate Court has also, by implication, affirmed the findings of acquittal for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
9. It is in the abovesaid factual backdrop, that the present petition has been filed so the position is amply clarified.”
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.[1] to 3 has joined the proceeding through video–conferencing.
3. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State has appeared for respondent No.4/State.
4. A bare reading of order dated 22.09.2025 would indicate that judgment of the learned Trial Court has not been set aside and the learned First Appellate Court has, merely, remanded the matter for a limited purpose as it was of the view that there was no observation with respect to the charge framed under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. The complainant has apprehension that since the matter has been remanded by the learned First Appellate Court, by implication, the findings with respect to Section 498A and 406 IPC have been affirmed by the learned CRL.M.C. 1810/2026 3 First Appellate Court. Her such apprehension is completely misplaced and unfounded as there is no discussion with respect to the merits of the case and the learned First Appellate Court has simply remanded the matter, without giving any observation, either way. For all purposes, the abovesaid appeal continues to be alive as the remand is only with respect to a very limited purpose i.e. to give a finding in relation to charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
6. Though there was no real requirement on the part of the First Appellate Court to have remanded the matter in the manner it has been done, fact remains that, in view of the abovesaid clarification and observation, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for any further relief in the matter.
7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. A copy of this order be also sent to learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court for information.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
JUDGE APRIL 29, 2026 st/pb