LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-24

PRADEEP GOYAL Vs. STATE

Decided On January 04, 2012
PRADEEP GOYAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 455/2003 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against the Petitioners in the present two petitions on the complaint of Respondent No.2 Ms. Manisha Goyal. On filing of the charge-sheet learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 10 th March, 2010 directed framing of charge under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Petitioner Krishna Devi and Under Sections 498A/34 IPC against Petitioners Anil Goyal and Savita. The said order was challenged by both the State in Criminal Revision No. 2/2010 and the Petitioners Krishna Devi, Anil Goyal and Savita in the Criminal Revision No. 637/2010 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned order dated 12 th April, 2010 dismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioners holding that there was no illegality in the impugned order as there was prima facie sufficient material on record directing framing of charge against Krishna Devi for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and against Anil Goyal and Savita for offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC. The State also challenged the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10 th March, 2010 discharging Pradeep Goyal, Veena @ Anjali, Kajal Mittal, Vineet Mittal and Ms. Savita. It may be noted that Ms. Savita had been charged only for offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC and the revision petition filed by her against the said order had already been dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12 th April, 2010. However the Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned order dated 18 th August, 2010 allowed the revision petition filed by the State and directed framing of charge under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Ms. Savita, Pradeep Goyal, Veena @ Anjali, Kajal Mittal and Vineet Mittal. It may be noted that the two revision petitions got listed before two different Judges against the same order.

(3.) Since the two orders impugned arise from a common charge-sheet, the same are being dealt together.