PRAVEEN BHUTANI Vs. USHA SETHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and proprietary of the impugned order dated 15th March, 2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application of respondent No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal No.11/2013 under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

(2.) It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that a number of civil litigations are pending between the parties. Respondent No. 1 in collusion with her husband on the basis of some false and frivolous complaint got the criminal proceedings initiated in 1995. The charge sheet was filed by the police on 15th March, 1997 and since then, the proceedings had been adjourned on one or other ground. On 5th March, 2013 summons were ordered to be issued to the complainant/respondent No.1 and other witnesses for 1st April, 2013, however, the address was wrongly mentioned as 18, Sunder Vihar instead of Sunder Nagar and, therefore, summons could not be served upon respondent No.1 and other witnesses. Thereafter fresh summons were issued to respondent No.1 and other witnesses through SHO/DCP concerned for 7th May, 2013 which were duly served. Despite that neither the complainant nor any witness appeared. As such, the prosecution evidence was closed. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, thereafter acquitted the petitioner.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed an appeal in August, 2013 challenging the order dated 7th May, 2013. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. In this application, respondent No. 1 knowingly cooked up a false story by alleging that the address mentioned in the summon was incorrect, she and her husband were never made aware of the pendency of the proceedings against the accused; the accused and the complainant are engaged in civil litigation and in one of those proceedings, the complainant wanted to find out the status of the FIR and on queries came to know of passing of impugned order acquitting the petitioner. On the basis of false statement, the application was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which order is erroneous and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the respondent had engaged a lawyer and was well versed with the proceedings of the case yet a false plea was taken of not being aware about the passing of the order. As such, on the basis of false facts, respondent No.1 succeeded in getting a favourable order which is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the main challenge to the maintainability of the present Revision Petition raised by the respondent is that the same is an interlocutory order and, therefore, revision is not maintainable. By placing reliance on Amarnath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1977 AIR(SC) 2185 it was submitted that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, jurisdiction of the Court is not barred in entertaining the revision petition.