SURJIT KAUR Vs. D S KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner, party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner (since deceased) filed a complaint under Sections 506/452/323/34 read with Section 120-B IPC against the respondents 1-4. It is not necessary to set out the details of the complaint as the learned additional Sessions Judge in his order has set out the facts of the case in detail. After the preliminary statements were recorded, the respondents were summoned and after recording precharge evidence, the learned Magistrate discharged the respondents finding no justification to proceed with the case. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, filed criminal revision No. 80/99 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the petitioner, pany-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents and having considered the material brought on record, both documentary and oral, dismissed the revision petition as against the respondents 1-3 and allowed it only as against respondent No 4, Javed Ahmed. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 2703/2000 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution on India before the High Court. The High Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and in that view, the petition was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Special Leave Petition before this Court.

(3.) The petitioner, party-in person, submitted that there is enough evidence to proceed against respondents 1-3 also; when the same evidence was accepted as against respondent No. 4, Javed Ahmed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in dismissing the revision petition as against respondents 1-3. It was further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having observed that the evidence given by the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner is positive against all the respondents, the case should have been proceeded against all of them. The High Court also committed an error in confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order.