CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 1 of 20

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 10.04.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 & & CRL.M.A. 9469/2026

MEENAKSHI GAUTAM .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay with Mr.

Archit Rajput, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

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.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

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-in-

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 2 of 20

chief and was allowed to be recalled only for the purpose of cross-

examination.

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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 3 of 20

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-in-

chief 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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 4 of 20

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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 5 of 20

purpose of cross-examination and not for further examination-in-

chief.

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 cross-

examination, 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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 6 of 20

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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 7 of 20

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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 8 of 20

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:

“1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C filed

on behalf of the prosecution to examine PW-1, CW-4 to CW-6.

2. Arguments on the same have been heard earlier.

Arguments advanced by the Ld. APP

3. It was argued by the Ld. APP that PW-1 is the complainant of the

present case and on account of her repeated non appearance she was

dropped from the array of witnesses on 31.07.2025. Further, on the

said day itself CW-4 to CW-6 were dropped as a report of the

witness not found was received. It was argued that the dropping of

PW-1 from the list of witnesses would have an effect that her

evidence which has already been recorded at length on two occasions

would not be read in evidence while she is the complainant of the

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 9 of 20

present case and she is the most crucial witness of the prosecution. It

was argued that CW-4 to CW-6 are also the witnesses whose

testimony is not of formal nature and they have been dropped on

account of the report not found, thus, the said witnesses be also

afforded an opportunity to appear and to depose as they are material

witnesses.

Arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel

4. It was argued on behalf of the defence that on 12.04.2012 the

complainant/PW-1 was examined in chief at length, subsequently on

24.03.2014 she was again examined in chief at length and the matter

was adjourned for the cross examination. Thereafter, the complainant

did not appear before the court concerned and she was dropped on

31.07.2025. Also, CW-4 to CW-6 were dropped on account of the

report of not being found. It was argued that recalling of PW-1

would cause grave prejudice to the accused as her examination in

chief has already been recorded at length on two occasions and her

recall maybe permitted only for the purpose of cross examination as

on 24.03.2014 when PW-l was examined in chief, the matter was

adjourned for the cross examination of witness but she did not secure

her appearance before the court and was ultimately dropped.

Arguments advanced by the Complainant

5. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that she be allowed to

depose and to conclude her testimony as she is the material witness

of the prosecution. Further, it was argued that CW-4 to CW-6 are

also material witnesses and their testimony is of importance, thus,

they be also recalled for examination.

6. Arguments advanced have been considered. The record has been

thoroughly perused.

7. Perusal of the record reflects that on 12.04.2012 and on

24.03.2014 PW-1 was examined in chief and the matter was posted

for the cross examination of PW-1. Subsequently, in July 2025, PW-

1 was dropped by the Ld. Transferor Court. Now, the present

application has been filed by the prosecution U/s 311 CrPC. The

essence of the provision is that evidence which appears to be

essential for the just decision of the case is to be duly considered.

Now, PW-1 is the complainant of the present case and the case of

prosecution is completely based upon the complainant who has been

dropped from the list of witnesses. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case titled as Mohan Lal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India 1521 (SC)

1991 has held that any person can be summoned as witness or

recalled or reexamined at any stage of proceeding where essential.

Thus, drawing strength from the same, the court is of the view that

PW-l being the complainant of the present case is a material witness

whose testimony is important for the just decision of the case.

Accordingly, PW-1 is hereby recalled for her cross examination for

the NDOH. It is also clarified that she is recalled for the cross

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 10 of 20

examination only as after recording of the chief examination on

24.03.2014, the matter was adjourned for the cross examination of

the complainant but subsequently on account of her absence she was

dropped.

So far as the question of CW-4 to CW-6 is concerned, then it is a

matter of fact that the 'said witnesses have not stepped in the witness

box till date and the process issued was returned with the report „not

found‟. The said witnesses are not formal witnesses and are

witnesses of an independent in nature, thereby being the material

witnesses their testimony becomes crucial. Accordingly, one more

opportunity is afforded to the prosecution to examine CW-4 to CW-

6. Hence, with the said observations, the application filed U/s 311

CrPC is hereby allowed.

8. Now to come up for cross examination of PW-1 13.03.2026 at

01:00 PM. Simultaneously, let summons be issued to the CW-4 to

CW-6 for NDOH through all modes.”

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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 11 of 20

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 cross-

examination 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-in-

chief.

17. The respondent no. 2, on the other hand, asserts that the

examination-in-chief of the petitioner had already been recorded at

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 12 of 20

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:

“3. The appellants herein are the father-in-law, mother-in-law,

brother-in-law, and sister-in-law respectively of respondent No. 2-

complainant. The marriage between the complainant and Sanjay

Gautam, son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 22nd

April, 2004. The spouses started living together in Bangalore from

8th May, 2004. The complainant filed a complaint against her

husband Sanjay Gautam at the Police Station Mahadevpura,

Bangalore on 26th December, 2006 alleging inter alia that her

husband had gone somewhere on 24th December, 2006 without

informing her. He returned home on 26th December, 2006 and

started assaulting her by giving blows on face and causing her

injuries. In the morning, he also tried to beat their daughter and

demanded that the complainant should bring money from her

parents. He went away from the house after beating the complainant

and threatening her not to move out without his permission.

4. Based on this report, Crime No. 312 of 2006 came to be registered

at Police Station, Mahadevpura for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 6 and

investigation was commenced. The statement of various witnesses

including that of the complainant and her father Shri K.K. Gautam,

were recorded by the Investigation Officer. So far as the appellants

are concerned, neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the

complainant or her father K.K. Gautam, was a whisper made

regarding any act of harassment in connection with demand of dowry

or otherwise, as against them.

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 13 of 20

5. Be that as it may, complainant claims to have returned to Delhi

where she submitted a typed complaint to the In-charge of Crime

Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi on 13th March, 2007,

wherein, allegations of physical and mental torture were levelled

against her husband and the appellants Rampal Gautam(father-in-

law), Rajini Gautam(mother-in-law), Smt. Vandana Sharma(sister-

in-law), and Sameer Gautam(brother-in-law), owing to dowry

demand. However, the police officers of the CAW Cell were

apprised of the fact that an FIR had already been registered for the

offences punishable under Section 498A, 323 and 506, IPC at Police

Station, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru and thus, no further action was

required to be taken on the complaint filed by the complainant. It

would be relevant to mention here that the complainant took no

further steps to prosecute the complaint lodged by her at the CAW

Cell.

6. In the meantime, the investigation was continued in Crime No.

312 of 2006, and a charge sheet came to be filed against the husband

Sanjay Gautam in the Court of 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bangalore who, vide order dated 21st February, 2011,

framed charges against the said accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, IPC.

7. The prosecution evidence commenced, and the initial

examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 12th April,

2012, wherein, she did not utter a single word regarding the role of

the accused appellants in harassing or humiliating her. Further,

examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 24th

March, 2014 wherein, she reiterated her earlier allegations and added

that her mother-in-law(appellant No. 2) and sister-in-law(appellant

No. 4) had also been harassing her, imputing that if her husband

Sanjay had been married to someone else, they would have gotten

more dowry.

8. Even in this improved version recorded nearly eight years after the

lodging of the FIR, not a whisper of an allegation was made by the

complainant against Rampal Gautam(father-in-law) and Sameer

Gautam(brother-in-law). After the examination-in-chief of the

complainant was completed, she filed an application before the trial

Court, seeking a direction for further investigation of the case by

resorting to the procedure provided under Section 173(8) Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

9. In the prayer clause (c) of this application, the complainant prayed

that a de novo investigation be carried out in respect of the averments

of cruelty inflicted upon her by the accused appellants with reference

to three documents i.e., the complaint dated 13th March, 2007 and

written statements filed by her, in the two divorce cases filed by her

husband bearing HMA No. 337/08/07 and HMA No. 402 of 2011,

before the Family Court, Delhi. Thus, primarily, the prayer of the

complainant in this application was for a de novo or reinvestigation.

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 14 of 20

10. Learned Magistrate rejected the said application vide order dated

30th July, 2015 holding that there was absolutely no ground

whatsoever to direct further/fresh investigation sought for by the

complainant. The order passed by the Magistrate was assailed by the

complainant by filing a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC

before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru which came to be

allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order

dated 9th August, 2016 directing that further investigation be carried

out in the matter in terms of the application filed by the complainant.

The said order is assailed in this appeal by special leave filed at the

instance of the appellants herein.

11. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the parties at bar and have gone through the

material placed on record.

12. At the outset, we may record that a direction to conduct further

investigation even after filing of the chargesheet and commencement

of the trial is permissible in law as has been held by a catena of

judgments of this Court. Reference in this regard may be made to

Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat wherein, this Court

observed that the prime consideration for directing further

investigation is to arrive at the truth and to do real substantial justice.

The Court further observed that further investigation and

reinvestigation stand altogether on a different footing. Even de hors

any direction from the Court, it is open to the police to conduct a

proper investigation notwithstanding the fact that the Court has

already taken cognizance on the strength of a police report submitted

earlier. However, a caveat was added that before directing such

investigation, the Court or the concerned police officer has to apply

mind to the material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction

that investigation of such allegations is necessary for the just

decision of the case.

13. On going through the material placed on record, we find that in

the present case, the High Court grossly erred and transgressed its

jurisdiction, while directing fresh investigation into the matter,

totally ignoring the fact that the application filed under section

173(8) CrPC was highly belated. At the cost of repetition, it is to be

noted that the complainant had already testified at the pending trial

against her husband Sanjay Gautam and in the deposition made on

12 th April, 2012, no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against

the appellants. Even in the deferred examination-in-chief recorded on

24th March, 2014, absolutely vague allegations were levelled against

appellant No. 2.

14. Undeniably, the complainant had the liberty to set out her entire

case/grievances in her examination-in-chief and make a prayer to the

trial Court that the remaining family members who had been left out,

should also be proceeded against by summoning them under Section

319 CrPC. If, at all, certain facts were left out from being narrated in

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 15 of 20

the deposition of the complainant, an application under Section

311CrPC could have been filed for recalling her and for conducting

the further examination. In any event, there was no justification

whatsoever for the High Court to have directed further investigation

into the case at such a belated stage and that too, for the purpose of

giving a handle to the complainant to improve upon her initial

version so as to implicate her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-

law and brother-in-law, who were admittedly living separately

whereas, the spouses, i.e., the complainant and her husband were

residing together at Bangalore, where the alleged acts of cruelty took

place.

15. As an upshot of the above discussion, we are of the firm view

that the impugned order dated 9thAugust, 2016 passed by the High

Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

16. The complainant is left at liberty to take recourse of the suitable

remedy for ventilating her grievances which would include filing of

an application under Section 311 CrPC and/or an application under

Section 319 CrPC, as may be desired.

17. Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal is

allowed.”

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-in-

law. 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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 16 of 20

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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 17 of 20

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 examination-

in-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

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 18 of 20

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 well-

settled 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.

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 19 of 20

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 cross-

examination, 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,

CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 Page 20 of 20

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/zp

T.D.