* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 07, 2026 % Pronounced on: February 17, 2026 + CRL.REV.P. 630/2017 PROSECUTRIX (X) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma and Ms.

Anisha P. Das, Das, Advs.

Versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Ashish Mahani, Ms. Vanshika Singh and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advs.

Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Durga Dass Vashit and Ms. Viapsana Bubna, Advs. for R-2 alongwith the respondent no.2 SI- Jag Roshni, PS: Timarpur + CRL.REV.P. 648/2017 STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Ashish Mahani, Ms. Vanshika Singh and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advs.

SI- Jag Roshni, PS: Timarpur Versus SUMIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Durga Dass Vashit and Ms. Viapsana Bubna, Advs. alongwith the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petitions, filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Hereinafter as “Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner/ complainant/ prosecutrix, Hereinafter as “prosecutrix as also the State, seek setting aside of the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned ASJ/ SFTC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter as “learned Trial Court, whereby the accused/ respondent no.2/ respondent, Hereinafter as “respondent was discharged of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter as “IPC arising out of FIR No.923/2015 dated 01.12.2015 registered at PS.: Timarpur, Delhi.

2. Since both petitions are arising from the very same impugned order dated 31.05.2017 and pertain to the same set of facts, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

3. Succinctly put, the respondent works in Delhi Police as a constable and is a distant relative of the prosecutrix. It is noteworthy that the respondent was in a relationship with the prosecutrix for a period of two years. On 08.10.2015, due to the alleged emotional black mail, the prosecutrix came from Ghaziabad to Delhi to meet the respondent and thereafter went to his rented accommodation situated at Nehru Vihar, Delhi with him. There, the respondent professed his love for the prosecutrix and assured to marry her.

Relying on promise of marriage, he established physical relations with the prosecutrix, however, the prosecutrix became distressed and confronted him by stating that he had acted wrongly, the respondent, albeit, reiterated that he would marry her. After this, the respondent dropped the prosecutrix at Ghaziabad at about 10:00 P.M. after assuring her once again of his intention to marry her.

4. Upon returning home, the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her family, and subsequently, her family members contacted the respondent regarding marriage, however, since he continued to give false assurances, ultimately on 02.11.2015, a Complaint was registered at PS.: Timarpur, Delhi resulting in registration of the present FIR on 01.12.2015.

5. Pursuant thereto, chargesheet was filed and thereafter an application seeking discharge by the respondent was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 31.05.2017, aggrieved thereby, the prosecutrix as also the State filed the present petitions before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix, whilst relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court entitled State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred by meticulously sifting the evidence/ material on record, which is beyond the powers conferred upon it by virtue of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C, and had also traversed beyond the ambit, as it was only prima facie to be seen by the learned Trial Court whether or not, on the face of the record, were there sufficient grounds for trial to proceed.

7. Learned counsel for the prosecut