OM PRAKASH MEHATA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were summoned vide order dated 27.1.97 for offence u/s 342/354, 323/ 328/506/147/149 IPC. The complaint on the basis of which the order on summoning was passed was as under: The complainant/respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1. She had certain litigations against the petitioner No.1 as also members of his family. On 16.4.91, the respondent No.2 was sitting in the chamber of her counsel. The accused 1 to 10 namely the present petitioners and one Sanjeev Mehta came to the chamber and bolted the door of the chamber. They used foul language against the complainant. Petitioner Jatinder pulled her saree while the petitioner No.l handed over a capsule to petitioner Santosh Mehta asking her to put the capsule in her mouth in order to make her unconscious. The complainant fell down from the chair while resisting the effort to put the capsule in her mouth. The accused/ petitioner Rajeev Mehta tried to overpower the complainant and brought out a big knife. The accused/petitioner L.D. Mehta and others kicked her and demanded withdrawal of the cases against them or to face dire consequences. She was eventually rescued by her mother.

(2.) After examining two witnesses, the Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter made the application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. on which the impugned order was passed. It is contended in the application that the complainant has played fraud and misrepresentation on the court by obtaining the impugned order without placing the real facts of the case before the court. Denying the allegations made by the complainant, the petitioners alleged that the petitioner Krishna Devi was an aged lady of about 85 years and under constant medical care and therefore could not have participated in the alleged acts. Similarly, it is contended, that the petitioner Jatinder Parkash and others except the accused No.2 were residents of Faridabad and they could not have been present at the scene of the offence. Further, it is submitted that there are several cases pending against each other and that the complaint is actuated by mala fide motives. There are other allegations to the effect that the complaint is false.

(3.) In the impugned order, the Trial Court has observed that after the order of summoning was passed, the stage of discharge will come only after the accused had appeared and that till then the Court had no power to recall the order of summoning.