DAULAT RAM GUPTA Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner challenges order dated 28.1.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order dated 28.10.2010 was accepted and she was discharged of all the charges. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. Counsel urged that the order cannot be sustained as at the time of consideration of charge, the Trial Court is required to take prima facie view and cannot scrutinize the prosecution case minutely on merits. There was enough evidence on record in the statement of the complainant and the witnesses examined by him to proceed against the respondents for committing offences for which they were charged -sheeted.

(2.) IT is a matter of record that the charge -sheet against the respondents was filed in 2006 under Sections 379 /406 /34 IPC. On 28.10.2010 learned ACMM ordered to frame charge under Section 406 /411 IPC and discharged the respondent No. 2 under Section 379 IPC. The respondent No. 2 went in revision and vide order dated 28.01.2010 the Revisional Court accepted it and discharged her. It is relevant to note that the State has not challenged the discharge order. The complainant preferred revision No. 228/2011 impugning the orders of learned ACMM and ASJ and was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition on 11.07.2011. It is further a matter of record that the present petition has been preferred on 16.04.2013 after an inordinate delay of 19 months. Vide order dated 16.04.2013, this Court directed the petitioner to satisfy with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The petitioner has not given any plausible explanation for not filing the proceedings in a reasonable time. In the absence of any explanation of delay, I find no sound reasons to condone the inordinate delay.