NARINDER PAL SOOD Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against 'the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated February 23, 1981, by which he has allowed the criminal revision filed by the complainant and required the Metropolitan Magistrate to serve notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as well.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who is a landlord had filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 read with the allegations that the complainant on June 22, .1979. at about 10.00 A.M. was dragged from the staircase leading to the second floor from the first floor and was held out threat that he would not be allowed to go to the second floor at any time and he was given abuses. The Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence had directed for service of notice on the petitioners for an offence punishable bunder Section 506 Part I, 1PC and had discharged the accused for offence under Section 341 1PC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has only, contended that the revisional court has no power to direct, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, .the service of notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section ,341 Indian Penal Code and at the most the revisional court could have directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to hold further inquiry into the matter. He has made reference to Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') in this respect. I do not find any merit in this contention Section 398 of the Cods reads as follows: