JYOTI VALLABH vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16th January, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 5394/2023 & CRL.M.A. 20449/2023 JYOTI VALLABH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. I.C. Mishra, Dr. Balmiki Prasad and Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Akshay, PS V.K. North. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner was, initially, charged under Section 354/354D/451/506 IPC vide order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court). 2. Such order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a Revision Petition before the Court of Sessions. 3. The abovesaid petition was, though, partly allowed as the learned Revisional Court came to the conclusion that there was prima facie commission of offences under Section 354D/506 IPC only, it imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- upon the revisionist for making irrelevant submissions and unwarranted wastage of time. Simultaneously, though there was no cross- petition or prayer for addition of any other charge, while disposing of the abovesaid petition filed by the accused, learned Revisional Court also directed charge to be also framed under Section 419 of IPC. 4. Such order passed by the learned Revisional Court is under challenge. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the revisionist was, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5394/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:17.01.2026 15:25:24 merely, pursuing his legal remedies and even if any submission was not found relevant, the learned Trial Court should not have burdened him with any cost, particularly when it was, eventually, allowed in part. It is argued that cost had been imposed on mere annoyance. He also submits that direction to frame charg