Dismissed¶34

Xyz v. State of NCT of Delhi through Sho, P.S- GK-1, New Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Mar 2026CRL.A./1090/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CRL.A. 1090/2024, decided 10.03.2026 (reserved 09.03.2026), single Judge. Prosecutrix's appeal under S. 413 BNSS r/w S. 372 CrPC against discharge of accused u/S. 376 IPC (Sessions Case No.278/2024, order dated 02.08.2024). Held: discharge is not an interlocutory order under section 397(2) CrPC; remedy is revision under section 397(1) CrPC; appeal dismissed as not maintainable; applications closed. Cases relied on: Bani Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720; Haryana LRB Corporation Limited v. State of Haryana 1990 KHC 512 : (1990) 3 SCC 588. Keywords: discharge, interlocutory order, maintainability, victim appeal, revision, FIR no. 7/2023 PS Greater Kailash.

What did the court decide?

Discharge of an accused is apparently not an interlocutory order as contemplated under section 397(2) CrPC. ¶33

Xyz Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Sho, P.S- GK-1, New Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecutrix's appeal under S. 413 BNSS read with S. 372 CrPC against the discharge of the accused under S. 376 IPC is maintainable, or whether her remedy lies in a revision under section 397(1) CrPC. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Since discharge is not an interlocutory order, the remedy available to the appellant is to file a revision under section 397(1) CrPC, and the appeal against the discharge is not maintainable.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Discharge of an accused is apparently not an interlocutory order as contemplated under section 397(2) CrPC.

¶33

Key takeaways

The appeal is dismissed as not being maintainable.ratio¶34
Notwithstanding the appellant's irregular appearance, the Court proceeded to consider the matter on merits after going through the records, in the light of the dictum in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintainability of victim's appeal against discharge — The prosecutrix appealed under S. 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with S. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 02.08.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.278/2024, whereby the accused (respondent no. 2) stood discharged of the offence punishable under S. 376 IPC for want of a prima facie case or strong suspicion. Held: discharge of an accused is apparently not an interlocutory order as contemplated under section 397(2) CrPC; therefore the remedy available to the appellant is to file a revision under section 397(1) CrPC. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable and pending applications were closed. The Court considered the matter on merits despite the appellant's irregular appearance, in the light of Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720; Haryana LRB Corporation Limited v. State of Haryana, 1990 KHC 512 : (1990) 3 SCC 588, relied on.

¶1

I� THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT �EW DELHI

¶2

% Judgment Reserved on: 09.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on:10.03.2026

¶3

- CRL.A. 1090/2024 XYZ .....Appellant

¶4

Through: None.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO, P.S- GK-1, NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Nishi, PS GK-1. JUDGME�T

¶8

CHA�DRASEKHARA� SUDHA, J.

¶9

This appeal under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik

¶10

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS) read with 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the prosecutrix in Sessions Case No.278/2024 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, challenging the order dated 02.08.2024, as per which the accused i.e. the respondent herein,

¶11

CRL.A. 1090/2024

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 0.03.2026 13:09:21

¶15

has been discharged of the offence punishable under Section 376

¶16

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

¶17

The prosecution case is that the appellant had given her gold articles to the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) and when she demanded those articles back, the latter asked her to establish physical relations with him. The accused/respondent no. 2 established physical relations with the appellant, against her will. Hence, the accused/respondent no. 2 as per the chargesheet/judgment is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

¶18

Based on the information given by the prosecutrix on 16.01.2023, crime no. 7/2023,Police Station Greater Kailash, was registered. Investigation was conducted into the crime and upon completion of the same, the chargesheet/final report was submitted before the Court, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned Section.

¶19

CRL.A. 1090/2024

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 0.03.2026 13:09:21

¶23

On appearance of the accused before the trial court, the

¶24

court after hearing both sides, as per order dated 02.08.2024, discharged the accused of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

¶25

A perusal of the record shows that the appellant has not been appearing before this Court regularly. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the appeal is not maintainable and that the remedy of the appellant is to file a revision.

¶26

As the appellant has not been appearing regularly, this Court is proceeding to consider the matter on merits in the light of the dictum in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 after going through the records in this case.

¶27

As per the impugned order, the trial court has discharged the accused of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC finding that no prima facie case or strong suspicion regarding commission of offence by the accused/respondent no. 2 has been

¶28

CRL.A. 1090/2024

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 0.03.2026 13:09:21

¶32

made out. Discharge of an accused is apparently not an

¶33

interlocutory order as contemplated under section 397(2) Cr.PC. Therefore, the remedy available to the appellant herein is to file a revision under section 397(1) Cr.PC. (See Haryana LRB Corporation Limited v. State of Haryana 1990 KHC 512 : (1990) 3 SCC 588 )

¶34