AARTI SHARMA vs STATE

Judgment text excerpt

$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 9th February, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 1918/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7297/2023 AARTI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Swadha Gupta with Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocates. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Kamal, PS Tuglak Road. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences under Section 186/353/332/298 IPC, 1860. 2. Charges were framed by learned Trial Court on 12.08.2022 and such order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Revision Petition. 3. Her main contention before the learned Revisional Court was to the effect that since accused had been charged for offence under Section 186 IPC also and cognizance for said offence could not have been taken in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C. as no separate complaint, as such, had been filed. It was contended that since all the offences were intrinsically interwoven and were inseparable, cognizance for the other offences was also not sustainable. 4. All such contentions did not find favour and resultantly, revision petition has been dismissed. 5. Such order is under challenge. 6. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that cognizance was bad in law and has, inter alia, relied upon Santoksh Singh Chawla vs. State of NCT of Delhi: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773 , Mohan Kukreja vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.: 2019 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1918/2023 1 THAPLIYAL Signing Date:11.02.2026 10:40:01 OnLine Del 6398 and Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab: 1962 SCC OnLine SC 342. 7. The concerned public servant has already, reportedly, expired as he was suffering from cancer. 8. After hearing arguments