$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1201/2025 & CRL.M.A. 25434/2025, CRL.M.A. 25435/2025 SATISH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Ms.

Nisha Dhawan, Mr. V.K. Teng and Mr. Pawan Karan Deo, Advs.

Appellant No. 1 in person.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI J.P. Sharma, PS Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 27.08.2025

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 380 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2023.

2. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Section 379 of the BNSS read with Sections 212/229/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).

3. The brief facts are that the marriage between Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 20.02.2018, whereafter, Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 moved to CRL.A. 1201/2025 Page 1 of 9 USA on 22.04.2018. On 10.03.2020, one male child was born out of the said wedlock.

4. Thereafter, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, whereafter, Appellant No. 2 allegedly deserted Respondent No. 2 and refused to maintain her.

5. That on 23.08.2022, Respondent No. 2 filed a compliant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) against the appellants and their family members. The learned MM by order dated 23.06.2023 dismissed the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 for want of territorial jurisdiction.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge being Criminal Appeal No.

109/2023.

7. Respondent No. 2, thereafter filed a complaint which led to registration of FIR No. 264/2023 at Police Station Farsh Bazar under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the appellants and their family members.

8. The Investigating Officer in the aforesaid FIR filed a closure report and the same was forwarded to the learned magistrate. By order dated 06.12.2024, the learned magistrate accepted the closure report filed by the Investigating Officer, noting that Respondent No. 2 failed to participate in the investigation. It was further noted that Section 498A of the IPC was one of the most misused provisions and the case registered CRL.A. 1201/2025 Page 2 of 9 by Respondent No. 2 fell in the same category.

9. The learned ASJ by judgment dated 27.11.2024, allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 29 of the DV Act, noting that the learned MM had the territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants preferred a revision petition before this Court being CRL. REV. (MAT.) 117/2025. After noting the arguments advanced by the appellants, this Court by order dated 12.03.2025, stayed the operation of the judgment dated 27.11.2024.

11. It is alleged that on 03.04.2025, the appellants received a Citation Notice from a US Court, whereby, they came to know that Respondent No. 2 had filed a case for child custody determination against Appellant No. 2.

12. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 in the said case has declared that she along with the minor child have been living in USA since September 2024, pursuant to which, on 09.05.2025, the appellants filed an application under Section 379 of the BNSS read with Sections 212/229/3(5) of the BNS before the learned ASJ in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2023 alleging the offence of perjury against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

13. It is alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 befo