RAJAT MITTAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and propriety of an order dated 30.08.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the petitioner was charged for commission of offences under Sections 328/376/420/506/313/406 and 376 read with Section 417 IPC. Status Report is on record.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the prosecutix 'X' (assumed name) and the petitioner were acquainted with each other since 2006. 'X' lodged a comprehensive written complaint implicating the petitioner for committing various offences on 01.03.2012. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 376/328/506 IPC was filed. It is relevant to note that the petitioner's mother and sister were not chargesheeted though they were also implicated in the complaint. By an order dated 2.2.2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 376/328/506 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 06.05.2014. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Court, prima facie, found the petitioner to have committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) During the course of arguments, the learned Senior counsel, on instructions, stated at Bar that the petitioner has opted not to challenge the impugned order on charge under Sections 376/506/420/417 Cr.P.C.