SUSHMA KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 21.03.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition was dismissed. The petition is contested by respondents No.2 to 4.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the Trial Court records. A case vide FIR No.262/10 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC PS Seemapuri was registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.2 alone. Respondents No.3 and 4 were put in column No.12. By an order dated 20.11.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the sole accused Daleep Kumar (Respondent No.2). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl.Revision No.24/2014 which was not entertained and application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition was dismissed.

(3.) It was pleaded by the petitioner that the delay in filing the revision was due to her ignorance of the order dated 20.11.2012 which was passed in her absence and the Investigating Officer did not inform her about the filing of the charge-sheet any time. The revisional court below did not believe the petitioner as her presence along with her counsel was specifically recorded in the order dated 20.11.2012. It is emphasized by the petitioner that she was not present along with her counsel and her presence has been erroneously recorded.