$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21.01.2026 + CRL.M.C. 528/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2125/2026 & CRL.M.A.

2126/2026 PRATIMA MAHAJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Armaan Roop Sharma and Ms.

Priya Pachouri, Advocates versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State with SI Rajak Ahmed, PS C.R.

Park CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has sought to invoke powers of this Court under Sectoin 482 CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with regard to an order passed by the Court of Sessions which was exercising revisional jurisdiction.

2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, I am unable to find the present petition maintainable. Rather, the present petition is completely frivolous.

3. For convenience, the prayer clause of the petition is extracted below:-

“a) Allow the present petition and set aside the findings and CRL.M.C. 528/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4af ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc Signature Not Verified KATHPALIA a 7 se , 0 r o 4 i u a 7 l = 6 N 3 H u 8 I m G , p H b o e C s r t O = a d U lC 3 R o e T d 8 O e 6 = 7 F 9 1 D 6 1 E 4 0 L 5 0 H 1 0 I e 3 ,C c , 4 I s D t 5 = c - D 07 e b lh 5 i, d

15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f observations recorded in the Impugned Order dated 17.11.2025 in paragraphs no. 4, 5 and 6 passed by Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 477 /20224 titled as ‘Pratima Mahajan vs. State & Ors.’, and b) Examine the legality and propriety of the Impugned Order dated 17.11.2025 passed by Sh. Vishal Singh, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 477/20224 titled as ‘Pratima Mahajan vs. State & Ors.’, and c) Call for and examine the Trial Court Record (TCR) in Ct Case No. 2150 of 2022, titled as ‘Pratima Mahajan vs. Subhash Mohan Gangahar & Ors.’, and d) Direct the concerned police officials to investigate the matter without any prejudice and register an F.I.R against the Accused Persons under sections 316(2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2), 341 (1), 61(2), 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023; and e) Direct the concerned police officials to investigate the matter and submit the report before this Hon'ble Court, and f) Pass such further orders as this Hon 'ble Court deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”

4. Despite being repeatedly called upon, learned counsel for petitioner is unable to show any legal provision or judicial precedent which permits the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC to dissect a judicial order and set aside the selected portions from the same. After addressing partly, learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to drop prayer clause (a).

CRL.M.C. 528/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4afec

45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, Signature Not Verified KATHPALIAp se o r s ia ta lN lC u o m d b e= er 1 = 1 d 0 3 0 e 0 8 3 6 , 7 st 9 = 6 D 4 e 5 l 1 h e i, c 45c07b5d15

570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f801e

5. Out of rest of the prayer clauses, only prayer clause (d) would be a relief sought from the Court. The said relief is for directions to the local police to register FIR for offences mentioned therein and to investigate the same and file a report before this High Court. Even these reliefs cannot be granted for the following reasons. Admittedly, the petitioner filed application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was dismissed by the learned trial magistrate and that dismissal was upheld by the Court of Sessions in revisi