Final Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI DELHI
Criminal Revision No: 338/2024
CNR NO. DLWT01-004855/2024
In the matter of :
Renu Khandelwal
W/o Sh. Kumar Vaibhav
R/o AH-1206, Antariksh Heights,
Sector-84, Gurugram,
Haryana
....Revisionist
Versus
1. State NCT of Delhi
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 07.06.2024
Date of reserving order : 28.01.2026
Date of pronouncement : 12.03.2026
O R D E R
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the
revisionist under Section 397 and 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) against the order dated 07.05.2024
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 1 of 15
-- 1 of 15 --
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘
Impugned Order’) passed by Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (herein
after referred to as the ‘Ld. Trial Court’) in Cr. Case No. 716/2022
titled as
State Vs. Renu Khandelwal arising out of case FIR No.
716/2022 registered at PS – South Avenue, whereby application under
Section 258 Cr. PC filed by the accused/revisionist herein was
dismissed and directed to frame notice for the offences under Section
323/341 IPC.
Brief facts
2. FIR in the instant case has been registered on the complaint
of Sh. Jaspal Ahuja, Security & personal Officer, Jawaharlal Nehru
Bhawan, New Delhi stated about the DD No. 44A dated 11.02.2021
regarding an incident had occurred on 14.01.2021 at Ministry of
External Affairs in Jahawarlal Nehru Bhawan wherein Sh. P. Harish,
AS (ER), MEA was subjected to verbal abuse and physical assault by
Ms. Renu Khandelwal, US (LAC), MEA. It was alleged that the
incident had taken place while AS (ER) was performing his official
duties. Later on Ms. Renu Khandewal was escorted out of the
building by CISF Lady Officials. Accordingly, the Ministry
constituted a Committee, who submitted its report and observed that
AS (ER) was subjected to both physical abuse and physical assault.
The AS (ER) remained confined to that room for more than a hour and
she did not allow him to attend his scheduled meeting, since Ms. Renu
Khandelwal was aggressive and displayed no respect for hierarchy or
the person. She also used expletives against the lady Inspector, who
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 2 of 15
-- 2 of 15 --
was escorting her out of the building. After AS (ER) left his chamber
and was in corridor, Ms. Khandelwal approached him from back,
stopped him and tried to grab AS by his shoulders and forcefully tried
to hug him. Two lady officials tried to separate her as Ms.
Khandelwal was trying to hold AS (ER) very tighly and AS (ER) had
confined himself in the room of PA to JS (Gulf)(Room No. 2127) for
more than an hour. Ms. Khandelwal tried to forcefully open the door
and kept banging her foot on the door. Later on, she was also found to
be enquiring about the residential address of AS(ER) and AS (ER) has
expressed apprehensions of physical security of self and his family
members from Ms. Khandelwal.
Arguments addressed by Revisionist
3. Assailing the impugned order, Ld. Counsel for the
revisionist submitted that the
impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial
Court is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures and contrary to
settled legal position; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that
Medial Board Report of the revisionist which states that the
revisionist/accused was suffering from “NM ORGANIC
PSYCHOTIC DISORDER AND DEPRESSIVE EPISODE” at the
time of commission of offence; that due to said psychotic disorder and
depressive episode, she was in a state of delusion; that the Ld. Trial
Court failed to appreciate the report submitted by Dy.
Commandant/Exe. to the Dy. Inspector General, CISF, Unhit GBS,
New Delhi dated 14.01.2021 which clearly perceived that the
revisionist/accused was a psychiatric patient and was on leave from
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 3 of 15
-- 3 of 15 --
August, 2020; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that that prior to
the alleged offence, the aggrieved person wrote letters to the
appropriate authorities stating about the inappropriate encounters on
account of mental illness of the revisionist; that Ld. Trial Court failed
to consider that the during the course of investigation, various
documents were collected by the investigating agency which proves
that the revisionist was suffering from unsound state of mind; that Ld.
Trial Court failed to appreciate that registration of present case FIR
was based on hearsay knowledge as the complainant was informed
about the alleged incident by third person; that Ld. Trial Court failed
to appreciate that the act of the revisionist did not amount to causing
physical assault with accordance to the ambit of Section 95 IPC as she
merely tried to hug the actual aggrieved person on account of her
mental illness amounting to which she was hallucinating the aggrieved
person as her husband and such act of the revisionist does not amount
to any legal liability as per Section 84 IPC; that Ld. Trial Court failed
to consider that there is no CCTV footage of the alleged incident as
the chargesheet and the CCTV footage played before the Court was
not pertaining to the incident but of exit only; that Ld. Trial Court
while passing the
impugned order has failed to consider that
prima
facie the material available on record does not attract any offence
under Section 323/341 IPC against the revisionist/accused, hence, she
is not liable to be tried for the said offence, hence, the present
revision has been filed.
2.1 To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
revisionist/accused has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 4 of 15
-- 4 of 15 --
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Prakash Nayi @ Sen
Vs. State of Goa (Dated 12.01.2023), wherein it has been held that :
27......... We do feel that both the Trial Court and the High
Court were influenced by the nature of the act while
ignoring the condition of the appellant and the fact that the
burden on the accused is one of preponderance of
probability. We have also been informed that the appellant
has recovered fully and mixed well with the society.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to give our
imprimatur to the conviction rendered against the
appellant as he is certainly entitled to the benefit conferred
under Seciton 84 of the IPC.
29. The order dated 25.07.2006 of the trial court of
conviction and sentence of the appellant punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC and the judgment and order dated
02.06.2008 of the High Court affirming the same are set
aside.
30. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges charged
with. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Arguments addressed on behalf of State
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State supporting the
Impugned Order argued that there is no infirmity and illegality done
by the Ld. Trial Court and has rightly dismissed the application
preferred by the revisionist/accused as well as order for framing of
notice under Section 323/341 IPC. She further argued that the
incident took place inside the office premises of the complainant, who
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 5 of 15
-- 5 of 15 --
is a Senior Bureaucrat during working hours, which restrained him
from attending his official meetings and the witnesses have
corroborated the occurrence, which discloses a
prima facie case
against the revisionist/accused, hence, no interference of this Court is
required.
Court’s Observation
5. The Court heard the arguments as advanced by revisionist
and Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have gone through the material
available on record including the Trial Court Record.
6. The main thrust of argument advanced by revisionist is that
the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the entire facts of the case and
material available on record which suggests that the at the relevant
time the revisionist/accused was suffering from Psychotic Disorder
and Depressive Episode and was in a state of delusion, hence, any act
committed by her does not fall within the ambit of Section 323/341
IPC in purview of Section 84 and 95 of IPC and she is entitled to be
discharged and the proceedings needs to be stopped under Section 258
Cr.PC. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to discuss the
defences raised by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused separately.
Applicability of Section 95 IPC
7. Now, discussing on the point of application of Section 95
IPC to the present facts and circumstances. However, before
appreciating the merits of the matter, it is pertinent to reproduce
Section 95 IPC, which reads as under :
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 6 of 15
-- 6 of 15 --
“Section -95 – Act Causing Slight Harm –
Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that
it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely
to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no
person of ordinary sense and temper would complain
of such harm.”
8. ‘Harm/Injury’ is defined under Section 44 IPC, which reads
as under :
“The word “injury” denotes any harm whatsoever
illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation
or property.”
9. Reverting to the present matter, in nutshell the allegation
have been that the revisionist, despite being an IFS Officer herself
entered the office premises of her senior/complainant at Ministry of
External Affairs and created a ruckus in presence of others since she
was in aggressive mode and also subjected the complainant to
physical abuse and assault. It has also been alleged that due to
uncontrollable behavior of the accused, the complainant confined
himself in the room of PA for almost an hour and due to the situation,
he was not allowed to attend his scheduled meetings. Hence, the
alleged act comes under the purview of injury to body, mind and
reputation as defined under Section 44 IPC and since the alleged
incident continued for few hours and the revisionist had to be escorted
out of the building by Lady Inspector, it cannot be said
prima facie to
have been a trivial matter to exonerate the revisionist under Section 95
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 7 of 15
-- 7 of 15 --
IPC at the threshold and cannot be conclusively determined without
examining the circumstances of the incident during trial.
Applicability of Section 84 IPC
10. Section 84 IPC embodies the well-known McNaughten
rule, which protects a person who, at the time of the act, by reason of
unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or
that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. The law point on
applicability of Section 84 IPC has been well settled by judicial
precedents.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal (Crl.)
1313/2006 titled as
Bapu Alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan
(Dated 04.06.2007), has held that :
“7.
Section 84 lays down the legal test of
responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind.
There, is no definition of "unsoundness of mind" in the IPC.
Courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as
equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" itself has no
precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying
degrees of mental disorder. So, every person, who is mentally
diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal
insanity and medical insanity. A Court is concerned with legal
insanity, and not with medical insanity. The burden of proof
rests on an accused to prove his insanity, which arises by
virtue of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (in
short the ’Evidence Act’) and is not so onerous as that upon
the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 8 of 15
-- 8 of 15 --
with which he is charged. The burden on the accused is no
higher than that resting upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a
civil proceeding. (See Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR
1964 SC 1563). In dealing with cases involving a defence of
insanity, distinction must be made between cases, in which
insanity is more or less proved and the question is only as to
the degree of irresponsibility, and cases, in which insanity is
sought to be proved in respect of a person, who for all intents
and purposes, appears sane. In all cases, where previous
insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations have to
be borne in mind. Mayne summarises them as follows:
"Whether there was deliberation and preparation for
the act; whether it was done in a manner which
showed a desire to concealment; whether after the
crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt
and made efforts to avoid detections whether, after
his arrest, he offered false excuses and made false
statements. All facts of this sort are material as
bearing on the test, which Bramwall, submitted to a
jury in such a case :
‘Would the prisoner have committed the act if there
had been a policeman at his elbow ? It is to be
remembered that these tests are good for cases in
which previous insanity is more or less established.
These tests are not always reliable where there is,
what Mayne calls, "inferential insanity"
8. Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from
liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of
mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of
knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 9 of 15
-- 9 of 15 --
is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected
not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of
knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know
either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law,
although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is,
however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing
was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to
law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary
to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. The
onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But
where during the investigation previous history of insanity is
revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the
accused to a medical examination and place that evidence
before the Court and if this is not done, it creates a serious
infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has
to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be
discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the
accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the
time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his
mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is
presumed to know the natural consequences of his act.
Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The
prosecution has not to establish these facts.
9. There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non
compos mentis (not of sound mind), i.e., (1) an idiot; (2) one
made non compos by illness (3) a lunatic or a mad man and
(4.) one who is drunk. An idiot is one who is of non-sane
memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid
intervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count
twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 10 of 15
-- 10 of 15 --
fathers or mothers, or the like, (See Archbold’s Criminal
Pleadings, Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn. pp.31-32;
Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, 12th Edn. Vol., p.105;
1 Hala’s Pleas of the Grown 34). A person made non compos
men-us by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts
as are committed while under the influence of his disorder,
(See 1 Hale PC 30). A lunatic is one who is afflicted by
mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes,
having intervals of reason, (See Russell, 12 Edn. Vol. 1, p.
103; Hale PC 31). Madness is permanent. Lunacy and
madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, and idiocy as
natural insanity.
10. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of
criminal law, i.e., actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea" (an
act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty
intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act
must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability
is fastened on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla
voluntas est).
11.xxxxx
12. The standard to be applied is whether according to the
ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was
right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited,
odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the
physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had
rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and
will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts, in the past
or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short
intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but
there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 11 of 15
-- 11 of 15 --
behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the
application of this section.”
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Surendra
Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in
AIR 2011 Supreme Court
627, has held that :
“9. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from
liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is
to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression
"unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Indian
Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to
insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in
different contexts and describes varying degrees of
mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental
disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The
mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his
brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental
ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect
weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual
acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was
subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or
the behaviour is queer are not sufficient to attract the
application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom
the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the
presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he
knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof
in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the
accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 12 of 15
-- 12 of 15 --
required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but
merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has
to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the
accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or
immediately after the offence with reference to his
medical condition by production of medical evidence and other
relevant factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness
of mind, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to
its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he
was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to
ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the
circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and
following the crime. Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a
desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to
avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to
whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him.”
13. Hence, it has been well settled principle of law that mere
evidence of mental illness is insufficient unless it is shown that at the
time of the act the accused was incapable of understanding the nature
of the act and the crucial point for determination is the mental
condition of the accused at the time of commission of the act, which is
ordinarily to be established through evidence during trial.
14. Returning to the present case, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist
placed reliance heavily on the medical documents placed on record
indicating that the accused was suffering from depression and had
been on medical leave. However, the said plea of unsoundness of
mind under Section 84 IPC involves determination of the mental state
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 13 of 15
-- 13 of 15 --
of the accused at the exact time of the incident, which requires
appreciation of evidence and can only be determined during trial. The
prosecution rests its case on the statements of the complainant and
other staff members, who were present in the office at the relevant
time which
prima facie discloses the commission of offence.
Applicability of Section 258 Cr.PC
15. The Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 258
Cr.PC first, which reads as under :
“Section 258 Cr. PC - Power to stop proceedings in certain
cases - In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon
complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous
sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial
Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the
proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment
and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the
evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded,
pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case
release, the accused, and such release shall have the effect of
discharge.”
16. A reading of aforesaid makes it abundant clear that Section
258 CrPC provides discretionary power to the Magistrate to stop
proceedings in certain cases, however, the discretion has to be
exercised judiciously in the cases which warrants the same. In the
present facts and circumstances, the non-applicability of Section 84
and 95 IPC as has been discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs
and no other ground or reason has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 14 of 15
-- 14 of 15 --
the revisionist for invoking power by Magistrate under Section 258 Cr.
PC, this Court finds that the prayer for stoppage of proceedings is
bereft of any merit.
Conclusion
17. In light of aforesaid discussion and applying the ratio laid
down by the Superior Courts, this Court is of the considered view that
the Ld. Trial Court has rightly ordered for framing of notice against
the revisionist under Section 323/341 IPC and dismissed the
application under Section 258 Cr.PC. Accordingly, present revision	present revision
petition is hereby	petition is hereby
dismissed
dismissed and	and
impugned
impugned order dated 07.05.2024 is	order dated 07.05.2024 is
hereby	hereby
upheld
upheld ..
18.	18. 	The Trial Court Record along with the copy of this
judgment be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
19.	19. The file of this appeal be consigned to record room after	The file of this appeal be consigned to record room after
due compliance.	due compliance.
Pronounced in the open
Court on 12.03.2026 (Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -06,
NDD, PHC, Delhi
It is certified that this Order contains 15 pages and each page
bears my signatures.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -06,
NDD, PHC, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.338/2024 Renu Khandelwal Vs. The State & Anr. Page 15 of 15
-- 15 of 15 --