##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27.10.2026 Date of Decision:04.11.2026 Uploaded on:04.11.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010086612020 + CRL.REV.P. 29/2020 & CRL.M.A. 704/2020 NILLUM BATRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain, Sr Adv with Ms.

Anushka Baruah and Mr. Pranav Das, Advs.

Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pravir Singh and Ms. Anushka Baruah, Advs.

versus STATE & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. and Mr.AmitChadha,Sr.Adv.,alongwith Mr. Pankaj Baghla, Ms. Vismita Diwam, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Siddhant Saraswat, Mr. Manjit Walia and Mr. Harjas Singh, Advs. for R2 to R4.

Insp. Sanjay Kaushik, NR-1, Crime Branch.

# CNR No. DLHC010153802021 + CRL.REV.P. 170/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5849/2021 MAYANK SINGHVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv.

and Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pankaj Baghla, Ms. Vismita Diwam, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Siddhant Saraswat, Mr. Manjit Walia and Mr.

Harjas Singh, Advs versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP Insp. Sanjay Kaushik, NR-1, Crime Branch.

# CNR No. DLHC010187932022 + CRL.REV.P. 297/2022 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP Insp. Sanjay Kaushik, NR-1, Crime Branch versus MAYANK SINGHVI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv.

and Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pankaj Baghla, Ms. Vismita Diwam, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Siddhant Saraswat, Mr. Manjit Walia and Mr.

Harjas Singh, Advs..

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present revision petitions arise out of the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 676/2018, titled State v. Mayank Singhvi. The said Sessions Case arose from FIR No. 185/2018 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, South District, Delhi. The impugned order, concerns the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. The result of the impugned order and the scope of the three revision petitions may be noticed separately.

Outcome of the Impugned order dated 18.12.2019 Scope of the present revision petitions

3. AllthreepetitionsarisefromthesameFIR,thesameSessionsCaseand the same order on charge. Since their determination requires consideration of the common material collected during investigation, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The facts leading to the present batch of petitions are that Anissia Batra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), daughter of Nillum Batra and R.S. Batra, got engaged to Mayank Singhvi, son of Rajender Singh Singhvi and Sushma Singhvi, on 29.09.2015 and both were later married on 23.02.2016.

5. Upontheirmarriage,thedeceasedandMayankSinghviinitiallyresided in a rented accommodation at Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, whereafter, they later shifted to the first floor of property bearing No. N-116, Panchsheel Park,New Delhi which was owned by Mayank Singhvi’s parents, who resided separately from the couple.

6. According to the prosecution and the complainant, the matrimonial relationship became strained soon after their marriage. The first incident relieduponisstatedtohaveoccurredduringthecouple’shoneymoonatDubai in March 2016, when Mayank Singhvi allegedly assaulted the deceased after which she contacted her mother. Her parents state, that when the aforesaid incident was taken up with Mayank Singhvi’s parents, they attributed it to the conduct of the deceased itself.

7. Alongside the allegations of physical cruelty, the parents of the deceased alleged, that monetary demands were raised before and after the marriage. Their statements refer to a demand of ₹10 lakh, payment of approximately ₹2 lakh to Mayank Singhvi at the time of the marriage, ten gold guineas, j