Aarti Sharma vs State

Aarti Sharma vs STATE

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 09, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1258790

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1258790
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
Decided On: Feb 09, 2026
Case Number: CRL.M.C./1918/2023
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aarti Sharma

Advocate Ms. Swadha Gupta, Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam

Respondent

STATE

Excerpt

.....not have been taken in view of section 195 cr.p.c. as no separate complaint, as such, had been filed. it was contended that since all the offences were intrinsically interwoven and were inseparable, cognizance for the other offences was also not sustainable.4. all such contentions did not find favour and resultantly, revisionpetition has been dismissed.5. such order is under challenge.6. during course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitionerreiterated that cognizance was bad in law and has, inter alia, relied upon santoksh singh chawla vs. state of nct of delhi: 2023 scc online del 4773 , mohan kukreja vs. the state govt. of nct of delhi & anr.: 2019 sccsigned by:sonia crl.m.c. 1918/2023 1online del 6398 and daulat ram vs. state of punjab: 1962 scc online sc 342.7. the concerned public servant has already, reportedly, expired as hewas suffering from cancer.8. after hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for thepetitioner, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to raise all such contentions afresh before the learned trial court, at the stage of final arguments.9. learned addl. p.p. for the state has also no objection in this regard.10. in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed.11. liberty as prayed is given and, therefore, as and when the case reachesthe stage of final arguments, it would be permissible for the learned trial court to hear arguments with respect to the statutory requirement of filing a complaint under section 195 cr.p.c. and to decide the abovesaid issue, without being influenced by the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned revisional court in crl. rev. no.504/2020.12. the petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.13. pending application also stands disposed of.(manoj jain)judgefebruary 9, 2026/dr/jssigned by:sonia crl.m.c. 1918/2023 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 9th February, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 1918/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7297/2023 AARTI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Swadha Gupta with Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Kamal, PS Tuglak Road.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences under Section

2. Charges were framed by learned Trial Court on 12.08.2022 and such

order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Revision Petition.

3. Her main contention before the learned Revisional Court was to the

effect that since accused had been charged for offence under Section 186 IPC also and cognizance for said offence could not have been taken in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C. as no separate complaint, as such, had been filed. It was contended that since all the offences were intrinsically interwoven and were inseparable, cognizance for the other offences was also not sustainable.

4. All such contentions did not find favour and resultantly, revision

petition has been dismissed.

5. Such order is under challenge.

6. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated that cognizance was bad in law and has, inter alia, relied upon Santoksh Singh Chawla vs. State of NCT of Delhi: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773 , Mohan Kukreja vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.: 2019 SCC

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1918/2023 1

OnLine Del 6398 and Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab: 1962 SCC OnLine SC 342.

7. The concerned public servant has already, reportedly, expired as he

was suffering from cancer.

8. After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the

petitioner, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to raise all such contentions afresh before the learned Trial Court, at the stage of final arguments.

9. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State has also no objection in this regard.

10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

11. Liberty as prayed is given and, therefore, as and when the case reaches

the stage of final arguments, it would be permissible for the learned Trial Court to hear arguments with respect to the statutory requirement of filing a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and to decide the abovesaid issue, without being influenced by the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned Revisional Court in Crl. Rev. No.504/2020.

12. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

13. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/dr/js

Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 1918/2023 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Aarti Sharma vs STATE Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain