(1.) The petitioner (Mr. Puri) is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the dismissal by the learned S. D. M. Delhi preferred against him under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent (Dr. K. L. Ahuja). The learned S. D. M. held an enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, during which he examined seven witnesses on behalf of the complainant and dismissed the said complaint. As against the said dismissal, Dr. Ahuja preferred a revision petition to the Additional Sessions Judge which was accepted.
(2.) It is seen from the records that even though the learned Additional Sessions Judge had merely ordered issue of notice to the respondent in that revision, (described as State) appearance was entered in that criminal case on behalf of the present petitioner. An objection was raised, on behalf of the complainant, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing counsel for the present petitioner, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered it appropriate to invite his counsel (who was present) also to address arguments.
(3.) It has been urged on behalf of the present petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge acted erroneously in setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint when the learned Magistrate opined that there were not sufficient grounds for proceeding further with the complaint.