Delhi High Court Rejects Petition, Labels Claims of ‘25 Bullet Wounds’ and ‘Self-Healing with Homeopathy’ as ‘Unbelievable and Inherently Improbable’
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court, Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to challenge an order passed by the learned Sessions Court on 18th October 2012, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 20th September 2012.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., seeking action against multiple individuals, including Yes Associates, Subhash Midha, and Sanjay Duggal. The complaint alleged serious criminal offenses, including an armed attack on the petitioner, resulting in multiple gunshot wounds. The petitioner further asserted that she had survived these injuries without seeking medical attention and had instead self-treated using homeopathic medicine.
The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., concluding that the allegations were improbable and unsupported by any verifiable evidence. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, wherein she introduced additional allegations and included Navdeep Singh, Advocate, as a new respondent. The revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which found the claims to be inherently improbable and lacking in substance.
In the present proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner altered the list of respondents again, excluding Yes Associates but adding Mukesh Tokas, the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Thana Sector 16B, Dwarka, and the Minister for Agriculture & Food, Union of India.
The petitioner contended that her complaint was dismissed without proper consideration of her allegations and that the Sessions Court had failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses she described. The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the court had a duty to summon the accused based on her testimony.
Justice Bhambhani extensively examined the reasoning provided by both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The High Court observed that the petitioner’s claims, as recorded in her pre-summoning testimony, were not only improbable but defied logic.
The Sessions Court had previously reproduced key portions of the petitioner’s testimony, which included allegations that she had been shot at 25 times and had survived without any medical treatment. Instead, she claimed to have expelled bullets from her body by taking homeopathic remedies. Her testimony, as recorded by the Sessions Court, included statements such as:
“I was dodging the bullets fired in order to save my life, but four bullets hit my head one after another, and blood started oozing from my right temple. I fell unconscious on the shoulder of the assailant and recovered quickly.”
She further stated:
“I had already taken ‘Arnica 30’ homeopathic medicine for healing injuries during the month preceding the injuries and during the struggle I had taken ‘Silicea 30’ for tissue repair, and therefore, the bullets came out from the head, heart, and from my hand and I healed slowly.”
The Sessions Court found these assertions to be “patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” It was noted that the petitioner had not sought medical attention, had not undergone any surgery, and had provided no forensic or medical evidence to support her claims.
The High Court observed that the Sessions Court had rightly relied on the legal principles established in Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1947, wherein it was held that a Magistrate is justified in dismissing a complaint where the allegations are inherently improbable and no reasonable person can conclude that an offense has been committed.
Additionally, the Sessions Court had noted:
“It is simply unbelievable that a person who has received 25 bullet injuries would remain conscious so as to walk back to her home, bleeding all the way, and then have a good sleep throughout the night. It seems like a fairy tale that the bullets lodged in her head and hands had come out of their own merely on account of the petitioner consuming a couple of homeopathic tablets.”
The High Court stated that courts are duty-bound to ensure that complaints are not entertained when they are based on allegations that defy logic and common sense. Referring again to Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors., it reaffirmed:
“… In cases where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable, so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, such complaints are liable to be dismissed outright.”
Justice Bhambhani recorded that both lower courts had correctly assessed the facts and had rightly refused to summon the accused based on the petitioner's claims. The High Court found that the Sessions Court had undertaken a detailed examination of the petitioner’s deposition and had arrived at a conclusion that was entirely justified under the law.
After hearing the petitioner at length on multiple dates, including 14th October 2024 and 6th February 2025, the High Court found no merit in her submissions. Justice Bhambhani recorded:
“Regrettably, this court is unable to discern any coherence or cogency in the submissions made by the petitioner, much less has this court found any reason to fault the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate…”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Sessions Court’s decision to reject the revision plea. Any pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
Petitioner: Appeared in person
State Respondent: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Other Respondents: Mr. Nishant Gautam, Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 (Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Minister for Agriculture & Food, Union of India)
Case Title: C Sharma v. Navdeep Singh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1462
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1624/2013
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
[Read/Download order]
