Delhi High Court
Kuber Boddh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 17 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on : 17.06.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 & CRL.M.A. 14386/2025
KUBER BODDH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Ms. Shruti
Priya Mishra, Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj
Kalucha, Mr. Kuber Boddh, Ms. Ashi Sonik,
Ms. Manica Singh Avijit and Mr. Adhiraj
Wadhera, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with
SI Rajdev, PS CR Park.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated
10.03.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), South East District, Saket Courts,
Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 23/2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 1 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
2. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ upheld the order dated
10.10.2023, passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the application
filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) was dismissed.
3. The germane facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. On 19.11.2009, a complaint was made by the petitioner to the
SHO, Police Station Chitranjan Park against the in-laws of his sister
Kuhu alleging cruelty, demand of dowry and misappropriation of the
stridhan of her sister. On 22.09.2009, a complaint had been made to
the ACP, Crimes Against Women Cell, South East District by the
victim Kuhu in this regard as well.
3.2. On 21.04.2010, FIR No. 84/2010 was registered at Police
Station Chitranjan Park for offences under Sections 406/498A/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘). Respondent No.2 is one of the
sisters of the deceased husband of the complainant Kuhu. Briefly, it is
alleged that in March, 2007, a matrimonial match was suggested for
the complainant Kuhu by one of her relatives. The complainant Kuhu
and her family were repeatedly told by the parents of the prospective
groom that they will not accept any dowry and the match was fixed.
On 21.05.2007, a ceremony of god bharai was organized in a Hotel in
Gwalior where lakhs of rupees were spent by the family of the
complainant Kuhu. Certain Jewelry sets were also given to the
complainant Kuhu. A few days before the engagement ceremony, the
parents of the groom asked the father of the complainant Kuhu to meet
them in Delhi. It is alleged that a demand of ₹20-25 lakhs in cash and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 2 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
latest jewelry items was made by the father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant Kuhu and they insisted that the same be given at
the time of the engagement itself. The parents-in-law of the
complainant Kuhu further asked her family to make payments for the
entire function. Due to shortage of time, the family of the complainant
Kuhu could only arrange ₹13 lakhs and the same was handed over to
her parents-in-law along with jewelry worth lakhs of rupees. It is
alleged that 10 days before the wedding, on 21.11.2007, the mother-
in-law of the victim called and demanded that a Mercedes car be
gifted to her son for marriage. It is alleged that the mother-in-law
further insisted that ₹35 lakhs towards payment of the car be made in
cash and the delivery would be taken by them directly from the dealer.
The said amount was given to the parents-in-law. A week before the
wedding, the victim’s parents received another call from her father-in-
law who stated that the jewelry handed over earlier has been
transferred to her sisters-in-law and new jewelry should be given for
the wedding. After wedding, the mother-in-law of the victim took all
the jewelry given in marriage on the pretext of safe keeping. It is
alleged that after wedding, her parents-in-law started taunting the
victim for insufficient dowry and her father-in-law even called her
husband to cut short the honeymoon due to not being happy with the
marriage. It is alleged that the complainant’s sisters-in-law and
brothers-in-law also changed drastically and they also taunted her for
the gifts given during marriage. After the death of her husband from
swine flu in August, 2009, the parents-in-law of the victim ill-treated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 3 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
her harassed her by calling her “manhoos”. It is alleged that in the first
week of September, 2009, the accused persons assaulted the victim
and threatened her to give up her claims in the properties owned by
her late husband. It is alleged that after death of her husband, the
victim was locked in the house, not given food and neither allowed to
sleep or contact her parents. It is alleged that when she demanded her
jewelry items, the victim was threatened by the husbands of her
sisters-in-law of dire consequences.
3.3. Chargesheet was filed against multiple accused persons,
including Respondent No.2, however, cognizance was only taken
against the parents-in-law of the victim. Initially, the parents-in-law of
the victim were discharged by the learned Trial Court. Subsequently,
the order discharging the said accused was set aside by the learned
Sessions Court and charges were framed for the offences under
Sections 498A/34 of the IPC on 23.03.2017.
3.4. The complainant approached this Court for framing of
additional charge under Section 406 of the IPC as well as for
prosecution of all the charge sheeted accused persons. The parents-in-
law of the victim also assailed the order of the learned Sessions Court
whereby it was directed that charges be framed against them. By
common order dated 24.08.2018, this Court directed the learned Trial
Court to frame an additional charge for the offence under Sections
406/34 of the IPC and dismissed the challenge of the parents-in-law of
the victim.
3.5. The order dated 24.08.2018 was challenged by the complainant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 4 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
Kuhu before the Hon’ble Apex Court. By order dated 11.02.2019, the
Special Leave Petition was disposed of after taking note of the
submission of the learned counsel that if subsequently some evidence
comes against the accused who had not been sent for trial, the
observations in the order dated 24.08.2018 would not come in the way
of the learned Trial Court.
3.6. The victim Kuhu was cross-examined and discharged on
22.10.2019 and thereafter, PW1/ the petitioner was cross examined. In
the year 2022, an application under Section 319 of the CrPC was filed
for seeking summoning of additional accused persons, including
Respondent No.2. The said application was dismissed by the learned
Trial Court by order dated 10.10.2023. The relevant portion of the said
order is reproduced hereunder:
“9. Bearing the principles in mind, I proceed to evaluate
whether there are sufficient grounds made out to summon the
suspects namely Agaya Pandeya, Rashmi Pandeya, Meghna Bhatt,
Amit Sadana and Pradeep Bhatt at this stage. The complainant in
her deposition during trial has levelled allegations against
suspects that her sister-in-laws used to accuse her for not
conducting marriage as per their standards and used to criticise
the gifts given or food prepared at the time of marriage. Further,
there is an allegation that after the demise of the husband of the
complainant, accused R.P Pandey, Maya, Pandey and Aagya
Pandey used to lock her inside the house whenever they used to go
out and used to lock her in the room whenever they were in the
house. They do not use to give her food or water properly. Further,
she was threatened by her sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law to
relinquish her share in her late husband’s properties or her
stridhan back. The allegations appear to be general in nature. No
date and time of the alleged incidents has been mentioned.
Further, the general allegations against the above said suspects
are not even in regard of demand of dowry.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 5 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
10. Thus, on the overall conspectus of the entire testimony of
the complainant, I find that there is no sufficient evidence on
record to summon the suspects namely Agaya Pandeya, Rashmi
Pandeya, Meghna Bhatt, Amit Sadana and Pradeep Bhatt as
additional accused persons to face the trial in the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
3.7. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ upheld the dismissal of
the application under Section 319 of the CrPC and observed that no
prima facie case is made out against the proposed accused persons and
the averments in the complaint are only bald in nature.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
application under Section 319 of the CrPC was erroneously dismissed
without appreciating that specific evidence has come against
Respondent No.2. He submitted that the petitioner had filed the
complaint dated 19.11.2009 and rescued the victim, who is his sister,
with the help of police officers, and Section 319 of the CrPC states
that anyone can prefer such an application.
5. He submitted that the allegations cannot be deemed to be vague
merely because no specific date or time has been attributed to the
incidents. He submitted that the absence of specific dates or time in
the victim’s testimony does not dilute the gravity of the allegations,
especially considering that the victim was subjected to incessant
trauma and harassment.
6. He submitted that categorical allegations have been levelled by
the victim against Respondent No.2 in relation to her being locked in
the house in her examination in chief on 30.10.2018. He further
submitted that the victim in her cross examination has also mentioned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 6 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
that there was no particular time when she was locked in the house
and that the accused persons used to ensure that one of them, that is,
either of her parents-in-law or Respondent No2, would be there when
they left the house. He submitted that the cruelty was a continuing act
and not giving any exact date or time does not make the same general
or vague.
7. He submitted that examination-in-chief of the victim as well as
the evidence of the petitioner is part of the record and constitutes as
evidence and the same is sufficient for proceeding against Respondent
No.2. He submitted that specific allegations in relation to the atrocities
suffered by the victim have been made in the complaint dated
19.11.2009 as well as the statements of the victim and the petitioner
under Section 161 of the CrPC.
ANALYSIS
8. At the outset, it is relevant to note that while it is settled law that
a second revision cannot be filed in terms of the bar under Section 438
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the inherent power of
this Court has a wide ambit and can be exercised in the interest of
justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Krishnan v.
Krishnaveni : (1997) 4 SCC 241, had observed as under:
“8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring
the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401,
upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory
jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the
inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 7 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However,
the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and
cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised
revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High
Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of
judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not
correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the
abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct
irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court
in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is settled law that the Court is empowered under Section 319
of the CrPC to proceed against additional accused and issue summons
against them if it appears from the evidence that they have committed
an offence for which they can be tried together with the accused. The
said power can be exercised if the prosecution at any stage is able to
produce such evidence that those who have not been proceeded
against as accused, have also committed the offence. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. : (2007) 7
SCC 378 has expounded the scope and purpose of Section 319 of the
CrPC and observed as under:
“16. ….As I see it, the words are plain and the meaning clear.
When in the course of the enquiry or trial, it appears to the court
from the evidence that a person, not arrayed as an accused,
appears to have committed any offence for which that person could
be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against
that person. Surely, it must appear to the court from the evidence
that someone not arrayed as an accused, appears to have
committed an offence. Be it noted, the court need not be satisfied
that he has committed an offence. It need only appear to it that he
has committed an offence. In other words, from the evidence it
need only appear to it that someone else has committed an offence,
to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. Even then,Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 8 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
it has a discretion not to proceed, since the expression used is
“may” and not “shall”. The legislature apparently wanted to leave
that discretion to the trial court so as to enable it to exercise its
jurisdiction under this section. The expression “appears” indicates
an application of mind by the court to the evidence that has come
before it and then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319
of the Code or not. With great respect, I see no reason to describe
the power as an extraordinary power or to confine the exercise of it
only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against any
other person against whom action has not been taken. After all, the
section only gives power to the court to ensure that all those
apparently involved in the commission of an offence are tried
together and none left out. I see no reason to curtail this power of
the court to do justice to the victim and to the society. It appears to
me that it is left to the judicial discretion of the court, judicially
trained, to decide to proceed or not to proceed against a person in
terms of Section 319 of the Code.
xxx
20. The power under Section 319 of the Code is conferred on the
court to ensure that justice is done to the society by bringing to
book all those guilty of an offence. One of the aims and purposes of
the criminal justice system is to maintain social order. It is
necessary in that context to ensure that no one who appears to be
guilty escapes a proper trial in relation to that guilt. There is also a
duty to render justice to the victim of the offence. It is in
recognition of this that the Code has specifically conferred a power
on the court to proceed against others not arrayed as accused in
the circumstances set out by this section. It is a salutary power
enabling the discharge of a court’s obligation to the society to
bring to book all those guilty of a crime.
21. Exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code, in my view,
is left to the court trying the offence based on the evidence that
comes before it. The court must be satisfied of the condition
precedent for the exercise of power under Section 319 of the
Code. There is no reason to assume that a court trained in law
would not exercise the power within the confines of the provision
and decide whether it may proceed against such person or not…”
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omi v. State of M.P. :
(2025) 2 SCC 621 had succinctly discussed the principles in relation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 9 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
to Section 319 of the CrPC. The relevant portion of the judgment is as
under:
“10. In Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Ramesh
Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 608 : (2023)
2 SCC (Cri) 625] while this Court has approved of relying upon
deposition which has not suffered cross-examination for the
purpose of invoking Section 319CrPC, it is relevant to note the
standards which have been fixed by this Court for invoking the
power under Section 319CrPC. The statement of law in this regard
is contained in paras 105 and 106, respectively, of Hardeep
Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 :
(2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] : (SCC p. 138)
“105. Power under Section 319CrPC is a discretionary
and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly
and only in those cases where the circumstances of the
case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the
Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that
some other person may also be guilty of committing that
offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs
against a person from the evidence led before the court
that such power should be exercised and not in a casual
and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is
to be established from the evidence led before the court,
not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination,
it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability
of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one
which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the
time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court
should refrain from exercising power under Section
319CrPC. In Section 319CrPC the purpose of providing if
‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence’ is clear from the
words ‘for which such person could be tried together with
the accused’. The words used are not ‘for which such
person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope
for the court acting under Section 319CrPC to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
(emphasis in original)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 10 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
11. The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court
for invoking the powers under Section 319CrPC inter alia includes
the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs
against a person from the evidence the power under Section
319CrPC should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a
casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down
by this Court, is one which is more than prima facie which is
applied at the time of framing of charges. It will all depend upon
the evidence which is tendered in a given case as to whether there
is a strong ground within the meaning of para 105 of Hardeep
Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014)
2 SCC (Cri) 86] referred to above.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, the test for exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 of
the CrPC is more stringent than one that exists at the stage of framing
of charge and the discretion can only be exercised if such strong or
cogent evidence surfaces against the proposed additional accused.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that while the petitioner had
sought summoning of Respondent No.2, Ms. Rashmi Sadana (sister-
in-law), Ms. Meghna Bhatt (sister-in-law), Mr. Amit Sadana (husband
of Ms. Rashmi) and Mr. Pradeep Bhatt (husband of Ms. Meghna) in
the application under Section 319 of the CrPC and pressed for the
same prayer in revisional proceedings, however, the present petition is
only focussed on Respondent No.2 and no relief is sought qua the
other persons. No reason has been provided for pursuing the case
solely against Respondent No.2.
13. It is pertinent to note that although Respondent No.2 was charge
sheeted in the present case, summons were not issued against her.
Pursuant to the same, the victim had filed a petition before this Court
for framing of additional charge as well as for prosecution of other
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 11 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
charge sheeted accused persons, including Respondent No.2. By order
dated 24.08.2018, this Court rejected the prayer of the victim for
prosecution of charge sheeted accused persons by observing that the
allegations against them were general in nature and sweeping
allegations against all adult members seemed to have been made out
of vendetta. It was further observed that no particulars as to the date
and time of the incident had been given. The Special Leave Petition
against the said order was withdrawn by order dated 11.02.2019 with
the submission that the aforesaid observations do not come in the way
of Trial Court if some new evidence comes up against the accused
persons.
14. It is argued that a case is made out for proceeding against
Respondent No.2 from the statements of the petitioner and the victim
under Section 161 of the CrPC, the complaint tendered initially as well
as the evidence of the petitioner and the victim.
15. In the opinion of this Court, while any new evidence that has
come up against Respondent No.2 can be looked at for the purpose of
adjudication of the application, however, the observations made by
this Court in order dated 24.08.2018 in relation to the material
available on record till that time cannot be reagitated in the present
proceedings. Even otherwise, this Court is in agreement with the
observations of the Coordinate Bench that the allegations in such
material are vague in nature. Thus, the statements under Section 161
of the CrPC are of no benefit to the petitioner.
16. Insofar as the ‘new’ evidence is concerned, it is argued that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 12 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
evidence of the victim and the petitioner establishes a case against
Respondent No.2.
17. As discussed above, the threshold required to be met is higher
than that of a simple prima facie case and the discretion to allow the
application under Section 319 of the CrPC cannot be exercised in a
cavalier manner. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the
revision petition after finding that the victim has not narrated the
allegations in the original complaint and the uncorroborated
allegations are vague in nature. The relevant portion of the impugned
order is as under:
“25… In the present matter, the complainant Kuhu Pandeya has
not narrated regarding any of the atrocities committed upon her by
any of the proposed accused in her original complaint which
exhibited as Ex.PW2/ A before Ld. Trial Court or in the complaint
Ex.PWI/A. The complainant has not whispered a word about the
conduct of the proposed accused persons in her aforesaid
complaint or in her statements recorded u./sec. 161 CrPC and it is
only in her examination-in-chief for the time when complainant
has levelled allegations against proposed accused Aagya Pandeya
of allegedly locking her inside the room and in the house in the
absence of accused persons and of not providing food or water to
the complainant. The complainant PW2 during her cross-
examination on behalf of accused Maya Pandeya had disclosed
that she did not remember the exact time when the aforesaid
atrocities were conducted upon her. Further, the witness has been
cross-examined at length on behalf of accused Maya Pandeya in
this regard. Even PW1 revisionist Kuber Boddh has not disclosed
regarding any such atrocities upon the complainant Kuhu
Pandeya. The aforesaid allegations of the witness PW2 are not
corroborated with PW1 and the same are vague in nature.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. A bare perusal of the examination-in-chief of the victim Kuhu
(PW2) shows that she has made broad assertions regarding
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 13 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
Respondent No.2 alleging that she along with other accused persons
used to lock the victim inside the house whenever they go out and lock
her in a room when they were inside the house. She further alleged
that she was not given food or water. In her cross-examination on
21.10.2019, she further deposed that whenever the accused persons
used to leave the house, they used to ensure that Respondent No.2 or
one of her parents-in-law would be there.
19. Even so, as rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and
the learned ASJ, the allegations in the deposition of the victim are
general in nature. Insofar as the evidence of the petitioner is
concerned, the same is also vague in nature. The petitioner has
deposed that it was the mother-in-law of the victim and Respondent
No.2 who used to confine the victim in a room and not give her any
food. Apart from this single sentence in relation to the said allegations,
no details have been given.
20. As discussed above, the test for exercise of discretion under
Section 319 of the CrPC is the surfacing of strong evidence that makes
out a case that is more than a prima facie case as is seen at the time of
framing of charges. Although the allegations are serious, mere
mention of the name of Respondent No.2 by the victim or the
petitioner, who is her brother, may cast some suspicion against
Respondent No.2, but the same falls short of carving a prima facie
case against Respondent No.2, especially since the particular
allegations in relation to the victim being locked in a room by
Respondent No.2 were made for the first time by the victim in her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 14 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
examination-in-chief. As rightly noted by the learned ASJ, such
allegations were not made earlier by the victim in her complaint or
statement under Section 161 of the CrPC.
21. It is also relevant to note that in her cross-examination, the
victim has stated that she did not remember the time and date as to
when the atrocities were committed. The petitioner has not given any
particulars in this regard as well. While the victim may be able to
establish a case that the harassment was continuing in nature and thus
no particular dates have been given in trial against her mother-in-law,
when the question is of summoning an additional accused, the lack of
specifics weakens the cogency of the evidence. This Court does not
consider it apposite to further comment on the said aspect as the trial
is continuing against the mother-in-law of the victim and any
observation made in this regard may prejudice the case of the
prosecution.
22. This Court also considers it apposite to take note of the conduct
of the petitioner. After having failed to secure summons against other
accused persons in challenge before this Court earlier, the special
leave petition was withdrawn with submission that the observations
shall have no bearing on any new material that comes up. It appears
that the petitioner and the victim have subsequently in their deposition
sought to cure the defect by making specific mention of Respondent
No.2.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the absence of any strong
evidence against Respondent No.2, in the opinion of this Court, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 15 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45
learned Trial Court and the learned ASJ have rightly decided to not
exercise their discretion in favour of the victim for summoning
Respondent No.2. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
24. The present petition is therefore dismissed in the aforesaid
terms. Pending application stands disposed of.
25. It is clarified that the observations made in the present judgment
are only in relation to Respondent No.2, and the same shall not have
any bearing over the trial.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 17, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR CRL.M.C. 3267/2025 Page 16 of 16
Signing Date:20.06.2025
13:32:45