Geeta Sharma & Rajeev Sharma v. State & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 26.09.2025) 

Issue 

The petitions before the Delhi High Court arose out of FIR No. 27/2021, registered at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, on the complaint of late Smt. Satula Devi, widow of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, a former Member of Parliament and founder of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 

She alleged that after Dr. Prasad was diagnosed with fronto-temporal dementia in 2019, certain family members and associates conspired to: 

• Illegally confine her, 

• Misappropriate assets and funds, 

• Forge documents and transfer shares of Aristo companies, and 

• Transfer properties in Delhi and Mumbai. 

The EOW investigated but later filed a cancellation report (08.12.2022), concluding no prosecutable case existed. On 12.06.2025, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) accepted the cancellation report and dismissed protest petitions filed by Geeta Sharma and Rajeev Sharma (petitioners). 

The central issue before the High Court was: 
Whether the petitioners could directly challenge the ACJM’s order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (inherent powers of the High Court) without first filing a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. 

Petitioners’ Side 

Represented by senior counsel, the petitioners argued: 

1. Maintainability under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 

1. Though an alternate remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. existed, the High Court could still exercise inherent powers. 

2. They relied on Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) and Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016), where the Supreme Court held that Section 482 powers are not ousted merely because a revision is possible. 

3. Section 482 can be invoked to prevent abuse of process or correct miscarriage of justice. 

2. Errors in the ACJM’s Order 

1. The Magistrate relied on documents not forming part of the record. 

2. Orders passed under the Mental Health Care Act (2020) were considered, though irrelevant. 

3. The Magistrate improperly allowed accused persons to argue on the protest petition, though law prohibits accused from being heard at that stage. 

3. Ignoring Medical Evidence 

1. Dr. Prasad’s mental incapacity (fronto-temporal dementia) had been conclusively established by an AIIMS Board and upheld by the Delhi High Court in earlier writ petitions. The ACJM ignored these binding findings. 

4. Contradictory Findings on Coercion 

1. While recording that Satula Devi alleged use of physical force and coercion, the Magistrate later concluded no such allegations were made. This inconsistency, they argued, shows non-application of mind. 

5. Abuse of Process 

1. The entire process, acceptance of cancellation report, dismissal of protest petitions, and hearing of accused, resulted in grave injustice to the complainants and her legal heirs. 

Thus, the petitioners urged the High Court to quash the ACJM’s order and hold their petitions maintainable under Section 482. 

Defendants’ Side (Respondents 2 & 3, with State) 

The respondents argued firmly against maintainability: 

1. Statutory Remedy Available 

1. The petitioners bypassed the revision remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. 

2. Direct recourse to Section 482 was impermissible unless extraordinary circumstances existed. 

2. Detailed Order by Magistrate 

1. The ACJM had carefully examined the cancellation report and protest petitions before dismissing them. 

2. The order was reasoned and judicially sound, with no abuse of process. 

3. Petitioners’ Misrepresentation 

1. They alleged the Magistrate considered extraneous documents, but those judicial orders were already part of the record (via petitioners’ own filings). Hence, the ACJM did not act illegally in taking judicial notice. 

4. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent 

1. They cited Vipin Sahani v. CBI (2024), where the Court held parties cannot bypass revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and rush directly to Section 482. 

5. Nature of Case Different from Precedents 

1. Cases like Dhariwal Tobacco involved quashing of summoning orders where liberty of accused was directly at stake. Here, the matter arose out of police investigation and cancellation report, which fell squarely within revisional jurisdiction. 

Thus, respondents prayed for dismissal of the petitions in limine. 

Court’s Findings 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma carefully analyzed the law on interplay between Sections 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. 

1. Nature of the Order 

1. The ACJM’s order accepting the cancellation report and dismissing the protest petition was a final order, since it terminated proceedings arising from the FIR. 

2. Such final orders are ordinarily challengeable through revision under Section 397. 

2. Judicial Precedents Considered 

1. Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI (2017): Distinguished between final, interlocutory, and intermediate orders. 

2. Dhariwal Tobacco (2009) & Prabhu Chawla (2016): Held that inherent powers survive even when revision remedy exists; limitation is of self-restraint, not jurisdictional bar. 

3. Mohit @ Sonu (2013): Contrary view, Section 482 cannot be invoked if revision available — but this was overruled in Prabhu Chawla. 

4. Vipin Sahani (2024): Relied on Mohit; hence, not good law since Mohit stood overruled. 

5. Amit Mittal v. State of Punjab (2025): Held that High Court cannot dismiss a Section 482 petition merely because revision exists. 

3. Application to Present Case 

1. While revision was indeed an available remedy, precedents established that Section 482 petitions cannot be dismissed solely for that reason. 

2. Petitioners alleged procedural improprieties (accused being heard on protest petition, reliance on extraneous documents) and miscarriage of justice. These contentions, even if disputed, made the case fit for examination under Section 482. 

Court’s Decision 

1. On Maintainability 

1. The Court held the petitions under Section 482 maintainable, despite existence of a revision remedy. 

2. Availability of an alternate remedy does not oust jurisdiction under Section 482. 

3. The limitation is one of judicial discretion and self-restraint; but where allegations of abuse of process or grave miscarriage of justice exist, Section 482 can be invoked. 

2. On Merits 

1. The Court refrained from adjudicating merits (such as whether cancellation was justified or whether accused were improperly heard). 

2. It clarified that those issues would be decided during final hearing of the petitions. 

3. Procedural Directions 

1. Notice issued to respondents (returnable on 17.12.2025). 

2. Respondents directed to file replies within 4 weeks; petitioners permitted rejoinders within 4 weeks thereafter. 

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court recognized that: 

• The Magistrate’s order was a final order capable of being challenged in revision. 

• Yet, in line with Supreme Court precedents (Prabhu Chawla, Dhariwal Tobacco, Amit Mittal), the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. survives and cannot be denied solely due to the existence of an alternate remedy. 

Thus, the petitions were held maintainable. However, no finding was given on factual merits of the cancellation report or protest petition; those would be determined at a later stage. 

The judgment strikes a balance: while urging parties ordinarily to follow statutory remedies, it affirms the High Court’s wide inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice when procedural irregularities or abuse of process are alleged.