Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
MEENAKSHI GAUTAM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay with Mr. Archit Rajput, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Puja Mann, Advocate and with
SI Chitra, P.S. Prashant Vihar.
Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Ms. Saumya Tiwari and Mr. Bishnu Prasad Tiwari, Advocates for R-2.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 11.03.2026 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-01, Mahila Court, Rohini District Court, New Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in Criminal Case NO. 12832/2025 titled ‘State vs. Sanjay Gautam’, to the extent that the petitioner was not permitted to be recalled for further examination-inchief and was allowed to be recalled only for the purpose of crossexamination.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as put forth by the petitioner, are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 22.04.2004 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a girl child „K‟ was born on 22.10.2005. It is alleged that on 26.12.2006 the petitioner was severely beaten by respondent no. 2, following which the police had reached the spot, rescued the petitioner and had taken her to the hospital. On the same day, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against respondent no. 2 and his family members, pursuant to which FIR No. 312/2006, for commission of offence under Sections 498A/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] was registered at Police Station Mahadevpura, Bangalore. It is further stated that upon learning about the incident, the petitioner‟s father, Sh. K.K. Gautam, and her brother Amit Gautam had reached Bangalore on 27.12.2006. Their statements were recorded by the police; however, according to the petitioner, no effective investigation was carried out thereafter. Since the petitioner had no place to stay in Bangalore and was apprehensive of residing with her in-laws, she left Bangalore along with her minor daughter after informing the police.
3. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint on 13.03.2007 before the CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi, narrating the incidents of cruelty and harassment allegedly committed by respondent no. 2 and his family members. However, the said complaint was closed on 21.03.2007 on the ground that an FIR regarding the same incident had already been registered at P.S. Mahadevpura, Bangalore. It is further the case of the petitioner that in January, 2008 the Investigating Officer at Bangalore filed a chargesheet under Sections 498A/323/506 of the IPC against respondent no. 2 and his family members without conducting proper investigation. According to the petitioner, her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was not recorded and several incidents relating to cruelty, harassment and dowry demands were omitted from the chargesheet.
4. The petitioner states that on 12.04.2012, her examination-inchief was recorded before the Court of the learned 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore [hereafter „ACMM, Bangalore‟]. It is alleged that the statement was recorded in Kannada language, which the petitioner did not understand, and several material facts and incidents were not properly recorded. Her examination was thereafter conducted on 24.05.2014 also in Kannada. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟] on 13.08.2014 seeking further investigation with respect to the incidents of cruelty which, according to her, had been omitted from the chargesheet. The said application was dismissed by the learned ACMM, Bangalore on 30.07.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the High Court of Karnataka, which by order dated 09.08.2016 set aside the order dated 30.07.2015 and directed the Investigating Officer to collect additional evidence based on the petitioner‟s statement and conduct further investigation. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 and his family members challenged the said order before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7968/2016. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, by order dated 28.01.2025, set aside the order of the High Court of Karnataka; however, granted liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 311 or Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for redressal of her grievance, if any.
5. Pursuant thereto, an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned ACMM, Bangalore on 13.08.2025. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 also filed Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 628/2025 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case from Bangalore to Delhi. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, by order dated 24.09.2025, transferred the Criminal Case No. 22068/2008 from the learned ACMM, Bangalore to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, and directed that the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
6. After transfer of the case to Delhi, the learned Trial Court adjudicated the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.03.2026 and partially allowed the same. However, the learned Trial Court permitted the petitioner to be recalled only for the purpose of cross-examination and not for further examination-inchief.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the learned Trial Court has erred in not permitting the petitioner to depose further in her examination-in-chief while deciding the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that several incidents of cruelty and domestic violence allegedly suffered by the petitioner at the hands of respondent no. 2 were neither properly investigated nor recorded in her earlier examination-in-chief before the learned ACMM, Bangalore, and therefore it was necessary to allow the petitioner to depose regarding those facts. It is further submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while granting liberty to the petitioner, had not restricted such liberty only to crossexamination, but had expressly permitted the filing of an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. so that the petitioner could place on record the incidents and circumstances which had not been recorded earlier. According to the learned counsel, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that such additional deposition was essential for bringing on record the complete facts relating to the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment.
9. The learned counsel further contends that the investigation in the present case was not conducted properly and several incidents relating to cruelty and dowry demands were not investigated or incorporated in the chargesheet. It is argued that the petitioner had already been prejudiced due to the incomplete investigation and the limited recording of her testimony earlier, and therefore denial of an opportunity to further depose in examination-in-chief would deprive her of placing the true and complete facts before the Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being the victim in the present case, cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses on the part of the prosecution or the manner in which the investigation was conducted. The learned counsel also states that the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. had itself been moved by the prosecution, and therefore the learned Trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to be recalled for further examination-in-chief instead of restricting the recall only to the purpose of cross-examination.
10. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 argues that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the examination-in-chief of the petitioner had already been recorded at length on 12.04.2012 and she was again examined on 24.03.2014, after which the matter was adjourned for her cross-examination. However, thereafter the petitioner did not appear before the learned ACMM, Bangalore for the purpose of cross-examination and was eventually dropped as a witness on 31.07.2025. It is contended that permitting the petitioner to be recalled for further examination-in-chief at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the accused, since her examination-in-chief has already been recorded on two occasions. According to the learned counsel, if the petitioner is to be recalled, it should only be for the purpose of cross-examination, particularly when on 24.03.2014 the matter had been specifically adjourned for cross-examination but the petitioner failed to secure her presence before the Court.
11. It is further contended that the petitioner seeks to have her further examination-in-chief recorded only with a view to level fresh and false allegations against her father-in-law and brother-in-law, which she had not stated in her examination-in-chief recorded earlier in the years 2012 and 2014. The learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and submits that the conduct of the petitioner has also been commented upon in the said order, wherein certain prima facie observations were made against her. It is also pointed out that the trial in the present case is required to be concluded within a short time, in terms of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is therefore prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
12. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2, and has pursued the material placed on record.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
13. In the present case, some relevant dates and events to be taken note of are that the examination-in-chief of the petitioner was recorded before the learned ACMM, Bangalore on 12.04.2012 and she was again examined on 24.03.2014, after which the matter was adjourned for her cross-examination. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 30.07.2015. The said order was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka, which vide order dated 09.08.2016 had directed the Investigating Officer to collect additional evidence on the basis of the petitioner‟s statement and to carry out further investigation. However, the said order of the High Court of Karnataka was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, which vide order dated 28.01.2025 set aside the order of the High Court. However, the petitioner did not thereafter appear before the learned ACMM, Bangalore for the purpose of cross-examination and was eventually dropped as a witness on 31.07.2025. The prosecution had thereafter filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned ACMM, Bangalore on 13.08.2025, which eventually stood transferred to the learned Trial Court in Delhi.
14. In above background, the impugned order dated 11.03.2026, passed by the learned Trial Court, partially allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., reads as under:
15. From a reading of the impugned order, following aspects can be inferred:
(i) The application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was preferred by the prosecution;
(ii) The application was filed on the ground that the complainant/PW-1, who is the most material witness in the present case, had been dropped from the list of witnesses on account of her repeated non-appearance, and that if she was not recalled, the evidence already recorded by her would not be read in evidence; it was also stated that CW-4 to CW-6 were material witnesses who had earlier been dropped on account of the report of „not found‟, and therefore they also deserved one more opportunity to be examined;
(iii) The complainant (petitioner herein) had argued that she ought to be permitted to depose and complete her testimony as she was the principal witness in the prosecution case, and that CW-4 to CW-6 were also material witnesses whose testimonies were important for proper adjudication of the case; and
(iv) The learned Trial Court formed an opinion that the testimony of the complainant was essential for a just decision of the case and therefore she deserved to be recalled; however, since her examination-in-chief had already been recorded earlier and the matter had been adjourned only for crossexamination in the year 2014, the learned Trial Court permitted her recall only for the purpose of cross-examination.
16. The petitioner now contends that the learned Trial Court erred in restricting her recall only for the purpose of cross-examination and in not permitting her to further depose in examination-in-chief, since the investigation in the present case had not been conducted properly and several incidents of cruelty allegedly suffered by the petitioner were neither investigated nor brought on record by the police, and also could not be deposed about before the learned ACMM, Bangalore earlier, and thus, in view of the liberty granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to move an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner ought to have been permitted to place the complete facts before the Court by way of further examination-inchief.
17. The respondent no. 2, on the other hand, asserts that the examination-in-chief of the petitioner had already been recorded at length on two occasions and the matter had thereafter been adjourned for her cross-examination, and further that neither in the FIR nor in the examination-in-chief recorded earlier were any allegations levelled against the father-in-law or brother-in-law of the petitioner, and that the present attempt to seek further examination-in-chief is only to introduce fresh and false allegations against them at a belated stage, as also noted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
18. To appreciate the rival contentions, it shall be apposite to carefully consider the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in order dated 28.01.2025 (reported as Rampal Gautam v. State: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1231), which are set out below for reference:
19. It is important to note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of the High Court of Karnataka directing further investigation in the case, has made several prima facie observations regarding the conduct of the complainant, who is the petitioner before this Court.
20. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after examining the record of the case, specifically noted that in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded during investigation, including the statement of the complainant and that of her father, no allegation had been levelled against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-inlaw. It was further observed that when the complainant had entered the witness box during trial, her examination-in-chief recorded on 12.04.2012 did not contain even a single allegation regarding harassment by the in-laws. It was only in the subsequent examination-in-chief recorded on 24.03.2014 that certain allegations were made against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Even these allegations were described by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as „vague‟. Significantly, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court noted that even in this improved version, not a single allegation had been made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law.
21. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also took note of the fact that after returning to Delhi, the complainant had submitted a typed complaint dated 13.03.2007 before the CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi, wherein allegations of physical and mental cruelty were levelled not only against her husband (respondent no. 2 herein) but also against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law in relation to dowry demands. However, admittedly, no further action was taken on the said complaint since an FIR regarding the same incident had already been registered at Police Station Mahadevpura, Bangalore. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also observed that the complainant had taken no further steps to pursue the complaint lodged before the CAW Cell.
22. Another significant aspect noted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was that the application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., seeking further investigation, had been filed at a very belated stage after commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court specifically held that the High Court had erred in directing further investigation in such circumstances and observed that such a direction would effectively give a handle to the complainant to improve upon her initial version so as to implicate the other members of the family; and that the in-laws were admittedly residing separately, whereas the complainant and her husband were living together in Bangalore where the alleged acts of cruelty had taken place. These observations formed part of the reasoning of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of the High Court directing further investigation in the case.
23. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she should be permitted to be recalled for recording of further examination-in-chief has to be adjudged in the above-noted backdrop.
24. This Court is of the view that permitting further examinationin-chief at this stage would effectively mean reopening testimony that was recorded more than a decade earlier, i.e., in the years 2012 and
2014. Such reopening of evidence, particularly when the petitioner had already entered the witness box and her examination-in-chief had been recorded on two occasions, cannot ordinarily be permitted unless compelling circumstances are shown.
25. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that her earlier deposition had been recorded in Kannada and that she was unable to understand the proceedings is also not convincing. The record reflects that the petitioner had appeared before the Court and had deposed on two separate occasions. At no point during the intervening years did she challenge the correctness of the deposition recorded by the learned ACMM, Bangalore on the ground that the language of the proceedings had caused any prejudice to her. The issue is being raised only at this belated stage, after the passage of several years.
26. It is also relevant to note that while the Hon‟ble Supreme Court set aside the order directing further investigation, it granted liberty to the complainant to take recourse to appropriate remedies, including filing an application under Section 311 or Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., if so advised. However, such liberty cannot be construed as a direction that further examination-in-chief must necessarily be permitted. Any application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be considered by the Court in accordance with the wellsettled parameters governing the exercise of powers under the said provision. Similarly, reliance placed by the petitioner on the observations contained in paragraph 14 of the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, wherein it was noted that – if certain facts were left out from being narrated in the deposition of the complainant an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. could have been filed for recalling her for further examination – cannot be read to mean that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had directed that such an application should necessarily be allowed. In this Court‟s opinion, the said observation only highlights that the complainant had the option of invoking the remedy under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the appropriate stage, instead of seeking a direction for fresh investigation, which she did not opt for.
27. Another relevant circumstance which cannot be ignored is that the complainant herself did not avail the liberty of filing an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in terms of the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In fact, the record reveals that the complainant did not appear before the concerned Court for the purpose of her cross-examination and she eventually had to be dropped as a witness on 31.07.2025. It was only thereafter that the prosecution (not the petitioner) moved the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the petitioner, primarily because if the main witness i.e. petitioner/complainant was dropped, the testimony already recorded would not have been read in evidence.
28. Thus, the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was not filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the liberty granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, but was moved by the prosecution owing to the fact that the complainant had not appeared for cross-examination. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court has adopted a balanced approach by permitting the complainant to be recalled for the purpose of cross-examination, which was the stage at which the matter had remained pending earlier.
29. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in a judicious manner. By permitting recall of the complainant for crossexamination, the learned Trial Court has ensured that the testimony already recorded does not go out of consideration, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the accused. On the other hand, permitting a fresh or further examination-in-chief at this stage would amount to reopening the prosecution case and allowing the petitioner to introduce allegations which were not part of the FIR or earlier testimony recorded on two occasions in the past.
30. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court.
31. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
32. Nothing contained in this order shall affect the merits of the case during the trial.
33. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J APRIL 15, 2026 T.D.