VIJAY KUMARI MCGEE Vs. S M RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Vijay Kumari has filed this application under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal made by Shri H.P.Sharma,Additional Sessions Judge,Delhi.

(2.) The applicant was serving as a teacher in Queen Mary School and was given a room within the premises of Victoria Girls Sr.Secondary School at 6 Rajpur Road,Delhi. She claims to be a tenant. The case of the applicant is that once she went to a relation and on return she found that her room had been locked at the instance of accused Mrs.S.M.Rao, as a result of conspiracy hatched between the school management. The applicant claims that Bhullan is the maid servant who had illegally obeyed orders of Mrs.Rao and he took law in his own hand and was an accomplice with the main accused Mrs.Rao. Mrs.S.M.Rao, Bhullan and the State are respondents before us .

(3.) The applicant had initially approached a civil court praying for permanent mandatory injunction including direction to Victoria Girls Sr.Secondary School to open the lock in question. Her application was dismissed by Civil Court and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, a report was lodged by her with the police. After investigation the police filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. The challan was filed against Mrs.Rao and Bhullan. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and summoned both the accused. By Judgment dated 3rd December, 1990, Mrs.Rao was convicted but benefit of probation was given to her. Bhullan was, however, acquitted. The State did not file any appeal against the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The judgment of Metropolitan Magistrate dated 3rd December, 1990 and order of Sentence dated 9th January,1991 were challenged by Mrs.Rao before the Court of Session. The applicant also preferred an appeal before Court of Session against the aforesaid judgment and order inter alia contending that Bhullan was wrongly acquitted and Mrs.Rao was leniently dealt with and benefit of probation was wrongly given to her and she should have been severely punished.