Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M)
Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Pronounced on: 27.04.2026
Uploaded on: 27.04.2026
Mandeep Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate
Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate and
Mr. Naman Gumber, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is for quashing of order dated 09.07.2021 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. A complaint under Section 376, 420, 506 IPC was filed by
respondent No.2/complainant for registration of case and for investigation
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat
called for report from the police station concerned, heard learned counsel for
the complainant and vide order dated 10.12.2020 declined the prayer for
registration of case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. observing that it would be
appropriate to direct the complainant to lead preliminary evidence as it was
not a fit case to be sent to police station for registration of FIR. The case was
posted for preliminary evidence of the complainant.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -2-
3. A criminal revision was filed before learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Panipat, challenging order dated 10.12.2020 of learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat,
relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari versus
Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC (1) set aside the order of learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat and directed learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panipat to send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
registration of FIR and for investigation.
4. The facts as narrated in the complaint:
The complainant alleged that in the year 2019 she connected
with the accused through TIK-TOK. Thereafter, they started calling each
other on phone. Accused told her that he was an unmarried army man posted
in Roorkee, sent her pictures in uniform and expressed desire to meet her. In
the year 2019, on the occasion of Diwali, he came on 10 days leave and
called the complainant to Panipat Bus stand from where he took her to the
office of his friend on his Bullet motor cycle where he promised to marry
her. They remained in the office for about 2 hours after which accused
dropped her at Bus Stand Panipat and went home. Thereafter, they started
talking to each other day and night and accused-petitioner promised to marry
her very soon. 2-3 days after Diwali, accused again came to Panipat, took
her to the office of his friend where he kissed her and assured that he would
marry her when he came on leave again. After that he went back on duty but
continued to talk to her regularly day and night. In February 2020, accused
came on leave on the occasion of Holi and assured the complainant that he
would talk to his parents about their marriage. He also took his cousin sister
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -3-on conference, who too assured that accused would marry her. On
29.02.2020, he repeatedly asked the complainant to meet him in Panipat.
She reached Bus Stand Panipat on 01.03.2020 at 9:30 a.m. from where he
took her to Skylark Hotel, Panipat, on the pretext of talking comfortably. On
his false assurance, complainant went to Room No. 108 in Skylark Hotel,
Panipat, where he offered her eatables after consuming which she became
semi conscious. Accused then laid her on the bed and removed her clothes
saying that they would be married in sometime and would remain together
the whole life. He then had sexual intercourse with her twice by giving false
promise of marriage. Thereafter, he took photographs with her and after
about 3 hours, dropped her and left for his home. He again called the
complainant on her mobile phone and when she asked him to talk to his
parents for marriage, he assured that he would marry her soon.
5. Complainant further alleged that she made telephone calls to the
accused for two days and again asked him to talk to his parents for marriage,
but he avoided the matter. On 03.03.2020, accused asked her to meet him at
Panipat and when she refused, he threatened to post her pictures on facebook
and ruin her life. She refused to meet him. The next day i.e. 04.03.2020,
accused told her that he had spoken to his father, who did not agree for their
marriage and had consumed poison. He also sent two pictures of his father
admitted in hospital. After that, he stopped taking her phone calls.
Complainant then narrated the whole story to her brother namely Rahul @
Alisher and her mother. On 07.03.2020, she along with her brother and
mother reached village of the accused where they met the Sarpanch and
narrated the story to him. Husband of the Sarpanch informed that accused
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -4-
was already married and had three children. The accused was also called and
he admitted her version. Husband of the Sarpanch noted the entire incident
in his Diary and sent them back with the assurance that justice would be
delivered. On 13.03.2020, husband of the Sarpanch called the complainant
to his village. Complainant alongwith her brother and mother reached the
house, where a quarrel occurred. Husband of the Sarpanch asked the
complainant not to move any complaint and assured her that he would marry
her. He also took their signatures on blank letter pad and sent them back.
They were asked to come again on 22.03.2020. He also prepared a
Panchayati Rajinama.
6. It is further alleged that After lock-down was over on
10.06.2020, a telephonic call was received from husband of Sarpanch, who
called her to the village. Complainant alongwith her brother reached the
house of the Sarpanch where a quarrel again occurred. Her signatures and of
her brother were taken on blank papers and they were asked to again come
on 16.06.2020. On 15.06.2020, a telephonic call was received from husband
of the Sarpanch, who asked the complainant to come to the village on
16.06.2020. Complainant along with her brother reached the house of the
Sarpanch where several persons were sitting. They were asked to wait.
Saravjit Singh son of Baldev Singh asked her brother to count currency
notes and to give the same to two persons, who were sitting with him.
Brother of the complainant started counting currency notes. In the
meanwhile, Sarpanch reached alongwith the police and involved them in a
false criminal case, vide FIR No. 122 dated 16.06.2020, under Sections 383,
389, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Tohana. All of them were sent to
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -5-
jail. Complainant, her brother and mother were released on bail on
23.06.2020. On 30.06.2020, complainant went to Police Station City Panipat
and moved a complaint to SHO Police Station City Panipat but no action
was taken. She also approached S.P. Panipat, but to no avail. On 13.09.2020,
accused Mandeep alongwith husband of Sarpanch of the village, his brother
namely Shyama and 15-20 persons came in 4-5 vehicles to the house of the
Advocate of the complainant where Mandeep admitted his guilt, which was
captured in a video from a spy camera. He requested complainant and her
mother to compromise the matter but she refused. Accused threatened the
complainant in case she dared to initiate proceedings against him. The
matter was again reported to police but no action was taken.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated
10.12.2020 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat declining prayer
for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and for treating the case
as a private complaint was correctly passed. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panipat duly considered the report received from the police station
which disclosed that the complaint was filed in the police station as well and
during investigation, it was found that Mandeep son of Meghna got
registered FIR No. 122 dated 16.06.2020 under Sections 384, 389, 120-B
and 34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad
against the complainant, her mother and others for blackmailing and
extorting money. In that case, Kiran, Anaro Devi and Rahul @ Alisher were
arrested and challan was presented in the Court. The complaint moved after
about 04 months was filed. It was urged that learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Panipat, erroneously placed reliance upon Lalita Kumar Vs.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -6-
Government of U.P. (2014)2 SCC(1) without considering that it was a case
of abnormal delay and the complaint was instituted after 07 days of release
of the complainant in the extortion case. The complainant was caught red
handed at spot, accepting extortion money of ₹6.5 lacs and registration of
the FIR against her was a material circumstance, which learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Panipat, did not consider. The observation in the impugned
order that the complainant could not be expected to collect and produce
documents i.e. call details, videography and photographs etc. was also
incorrect inasmuch as complainant’s own stand was that a lady police
official had deleted all the photographs and data from her mobile phone. No
reasons were disclosed for the delay in lodging complaint, which was only a
counter blast of the FIR. Order of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panipat directing registration of FIR, thus, deserves to be set aside.
8. Learned State counsel, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana and
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supported the order of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat submitting that direction for registration
of FIR was rightly passed in view of the allegations in the complaint that
petitioner, who was already married had induced complainant to sexual
intercourse on false promise of marriage by withholding the marital status.
Even report of the police did not say that the case was false. Respondent No.
2 had taken the matter to Gram Panchayat, village Kullan, Block Tohana,
District Fatehabad. Since petitioner was married, the Gram Panchayat made
petitioner realise his mistake and imposed fine of ₹6,51,000/-, which, in the
first instance, was to be paid to Sarpanch and thereafter, was to be given to
family of the girl. Petitioner admitted his guilt in a video prepared from spy
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -7-
camera on record as Annexure C-18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panipat, after duly considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the
case, passed the impugned order as per law and no interference by this Court
was warranted.
9. Against this, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to
judgment of this Court in CRM-M-12329-2018 titled M/s Sujan Multiports
Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others decided on 12.03.2019, judgment of
Madras High Court in Crl.R.C. (MD) Nos. 646, 647, 648, 650, 651 and 652
of 2022 and Crl. R.C.(MD) Nos. 657 to 661 of 2022 titled GTL
Infrastructure Ltd. represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Muthuvenkatakrishnan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police
Station, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu-625 218 decided on 28.08.2022 and
judgment of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in CRM(M)259-
2019 titled Satpal Sharma Vs. Pawan Singh Rathore, Ex. Vice Chairman
JDA, decided on 17.12.2020, arguing that the order passed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature, therefore, not amenable to
challange in a criminal revision in view of the bar contained in Section
397(3) Cr.P.C. and when the revision petition itself was not maintainable,
impugned order deserved to be set aside. It was further canvassed that
learned Magistrate had absolute discretion in the matter and it was not
mandatory that in every case, where a complaint was filed under Section 200
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime. In
this context, reference was made to Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra (SC) 2025 SCC Online SC 238.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -8-
10. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Avinash
Trimbarkrao Dhongage Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station
Officer, Shivajinagar, Nanded 2015(38) RCR (Criminal) 32, judgment of
Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Siddharth Wadhwa and Another
2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Jaswinder Singh and Anothers Vs. Sukhwinder Singh Bhatia
and Others 2022 PHHC 114982, Santhakumari and Others Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and Another 2023 Live Law (SC) 465 and judgment of
Allahabad High Court in Jagannath Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P.
and Another 2015(1) Law Herald (SC) 385 to support the submission that
an order of a Magistrate allowing or rejecting an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case by the police and for investigation
was not an interlocutory order and the order was amenable to remedy of
revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
11. In Amarnath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others
AIR 1977 (SC) 215, while elaborating on the term interlocutory order,
Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“6. The main question which falls for determination in this
appeal is as to, the what is the connotation of the term
“interlocutory order” as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section
397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High
Court. The term “interlocutory order” is a term of well-known
legal significance and does not present any serious diffident. It
has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -9-Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like
statutes. In Webster’s New World Dictionary “interlocutory” has
been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided
cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable
must be those which decide ‘the rights and liabilities of the
parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to, us that the
term “interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code
has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or
artistic sense.It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or
temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important
rights, or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which
substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain
rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order
so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order,
because that would be against the very object which formed the
basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of
the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning
witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for
reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding,
may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no
revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But
orders which are matters of moment and which affect or
adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of
the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -10-outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court.”
12. A similar issue was considered by a Bench of Allahabad High
Court in Jagannath Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P.(supra) which came
to the following conclusion:
“(i) ……….
(ii) An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code for registration of a case by the
police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such
an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under
Section 397; and
(iii) In proceedings in revision under Section 397, the
prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is
suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an
opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the
criminal revision.”
13. In Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Siddharth Wadhwa and Another(supra)
as well, the High Court of Delhi considered the maintainability of revision
petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against an order of Magistrate under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing the police to register an FIR, when it was
held as under:
“11. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the decision
reported as 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5197: 2016 ALLMR (Cri)
985 Avinash and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors held
that the order passed directing police to investigate under
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -11-Section 156(3) of the Code is not an interlocutory order, but in
the nature of a final order terminating the proceedings under
Section 156 (3) of the Code which would be revisable under the
revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court.
12. It is trite law that once directions are passed by the learned
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration
of FIR he becomes functus-officio. [See (2016) SCConline Del
5490 M/s. Gabrani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Unitech Hi-
Tech Developers Limited & Ors and MANU/GJ/7486/2007
Randhirsinh Dipsinh Parmar vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.].
Thus, disposing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
amounts to adjudication of a valuable right whether in favour
of accused or the complainant.
13. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as
an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien,
while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The
said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the
complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint
case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR
immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom
allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an
accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for
investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of
cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the
AJAY GOSWAMI
fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected,
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -12-it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage.
Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken
thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the
decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, an order dismissing
or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not
an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same
is maintainable.”
14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jaswinder Singh and
Others Vs. Sukhwinder Singh Bhatia and Others (supra) while dealing
with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an order passed by
the Revisional Court vide which order passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was set aside, observed as
under:
“Since in the present case, the Magistrate has dismissed the
application filed by the petitioners under Section 156 (3). Thus,
it cannot be said that it is an interlocutory order and thus the
revision petition will be barred under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.”
15. The argument of learned petitioner counsel that revision petition
against order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat was not
maintainable, the order being interlocutory in nature is, therefore, repelled.
16. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. reads thus:
“(i) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the
order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognisable case which a
Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -13-
such station would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIII.
(ii) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at
any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was
one which such officer was not empowered under this section to
investigate.
(iii) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order
such an investigation as above mentioned.”
17. Resort to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is made when the police
refuses to register a first information report. The complainant, thereafter, can
invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for police investigation under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. Whether or not, the order for registration of FIR and police
investigation is to be made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or the case is to be
treated as a private complaint by calling upon the complainant to lead
preliminary evidence, is entirely within the discretion of the concerned
Magistrate. Whenever any application is filed by the complainant before the
court of learned JMIC under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the duty of the
concerned Magistrate is to apply his mind to adjudge whether the case is fit
one to order police investigation.
In Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that a Magistrate should pass
orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only he is satisfied that the information
reveals commission of a cognizable offence and also about the necessity of
police investigation for digging out of evidence wherein neither is in
possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -14-
the police. It was further observed that it is not necessary that in every case,
where a complaint has been filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate
should direct the police to investigate the crime. It was further observed that
the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the
assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that
the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the
police.
18. Thus, law does not enjoin the Magistrate to mechanically direct
investigation by the police, without examining whether investigation by the
State machinery is actually necessitated in the facts and circumstances of
each individual case. Usually, such orders are passed if the allegations made
in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which
cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State
machinery. A judicious approach is required while considering an
application seeking registration of FIR and investigation by the police under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
19. In the case in hand, the complaint under Sections 376, 420, 506
IPC was filed on 19.11.2020, alleging that the petitioner connected with the
complainant through ‘TikTok’ in the year 2019 and had sexual intercourse
with her on the promise of marriage in room No. 108, Skylark Hotel, Panipat
on 01.03.2020. The complaint was filed after a delay of 09 months. Lalita
Kumari‘s case(supra), which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat,
relied upon while directing learned JMIC, Panipat to send the complaint
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR, no doubt envisages
mandatory registration of FIR, if the information discloses commission of a
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -15-
cognizable offence, but makes an exception, where there is an abnormal
delay/latches in criminal prosecution without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.
20. Before passing the order, treating the case as a private
complaint, learned Magistrate called for a report from the police station
concerned and after considering the fact that there was already FIR No. 122
dated 16.06.2020 under Sections 383, 389, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station
Sadar, Tohana registered against the complainant for extortion, opined that it
was not a fit case to be sent to the police station for registration of the FIR.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, erroneously construing the
dictum of Apex Court in Lalita Kumari‘s case(supra), without even
considering the report of the police station, wrongly proceeded on the
premise that in the case relating to a cognizable offence, complainant could
not be expected to collect and produce evidence in the form of call details,
photographs, videography, although, it was complainant’s own stand that a
lady police official had snatched her mobile phone and deleted the
photographs, videography and whatsapp chats with the accused. The 09
months delay in seeking registration of FIR was completely overlooked.
Since the complainant was in possession of complete details of the accused
and no complex or scientific investigation was required, the procedure of
complaint case ought to have been adopted, in the backdrop of the fact that
there was an extortion case registered against the complainant, who was
stated to be caught red handed by the police, accepting extortion money of
₹6.5 lacs. Complainant too did not dispute the factum of registration of the
FIR against her. Her stand was also that her brother was counting currency
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-28852 of 2021(O&M) -16-
notes when the police officials conducted raid and involved them in the case,
though, she claimed that the money was in respect of an agreement of land
to be executed by husband of the Sarpanch.
21. Police investigation would be required only in a case of a nature
where it is not possible for the private complaint to collect evidence and
where complicated investigation is required. The powers under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of FIR and police investigation are
required to be used sparingly, only to avoid miscarriage of justice. In every
complaint, where such a prayer is made for police investigation and
registration of FIR, it is not incumbent for the Magistrate to direct
registration of the FIR. Order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat
dated 10.12.2020 being against law, is liable to be quashed.
22. The petition is allowed. Order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panipat dated 10.12.2020 is maintained and order of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 09.07.2021 along with all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is set aside. Learned JMIC,
Panipat shall proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.
23. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
24. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion
on merits of the case.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.27 19:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document