SARITHA PAPPU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.2 herein, filed a private complaint on 17.02.2003, against the petitioners herein and two others, alleging commission of offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC. On 18.06.2003, learned Magistrate registered the case and referred the same for investigation. The Investigating Officer having filed a charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and C.C.No.8845/2005 was registered. In response to the summons issued, the petitioners entered appearance and filed an application on 17.03.2007, under S.239 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), seeking discharge. By an order dated 02.05.2008, the learned Magistrate allowed the application and discharged all the accused.

(2.) Assailing the said order, Criminal Revision petition filed by respondent No.1 herein, having been allowed on 30.12.2011 and the impugned order therein having been set aside and the learned Magistrate having been directed to frame the charge and proceed with the case, this petition was filed.

(3.) Sri U.S. Yogesh Kumar, learned advocate, contended that the Sessions Judge did not serve notice on the petitioners, who were arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C. No.8845/2005. He submitted that without providing an opportunity to the petitioners, the learned Judge has exercised the revisional jurisdiction and reversed the order impugned in the petition and directed the Trial Judge to frame the charge and proceed further in the case. He submitted that the impugned order being arbitrary and illegal, interference is called for.