MUKESH AGGARWAL Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the complainant, whose application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was allowed by learned trial court, at whose instance FIR under Sections 384/385/387/506/120 -B of IPC was registered at P.S. Narela, Delhi. Charge -sheet was filed against accused -Neerja Sharma in the above -said FIR case and in the supplementary charge -sheet filed, the first four respondents herein were shown in column No.12 due to lack of evidence against them. The trial court did not accept the supplementary charge -sheet qua respondent -ACP (Retd.) Ram Chander and had summoned him as an accused. The protest petition of petitioner - complainant herein against Respondents No.2 to 4 herein was not accepted by trial court vide order of 3rd January, 2012 which was challenged by way of a revision petition by first respondent -ACP (Retd.) Ram Chander because he was summoned as an accused.

(2.) PETITIONER had also assailed aforesaid trial court's order refusing to summon respondents No.2 to 4 herein as accused in the FIR case. Learned revisional court vide impugned order of 3rd September, 2013 has rejected petitioner's revision petition against non -summoning of respondents No.2 to 4 herein and has accepted revision petition of ACP (Retd.) Ram Chander, who is first respondent in this petition.

(3.) CHALLENGE to the impugned order by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that at the stage of summoning, it is to be only seen whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against an accused and not to weigh the evidence. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for petitioner that learned revisional court in the impugned order has gone into the merits and has discarded petitioner's case qua first four respondents herein although there is sufficient material on record to prove that accused -Neerja Sharma had conspired with respondents No.1 to 4 herein to commit the offence in question. It was pointed out that there is no basis to discard petitioner's version of first respondent and third respondent extending threats to petitioner of false implication and of extorting rupees five lacs from petitioner particularly when the statement of petitioner is corroborated by the statement of Sanjay, who is wardboy in petitioner's clinic.