DARSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 22nd May, 1995, thereby dropping the charge framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 420/120-B against the accused persons.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the Addl. Sessions Judge, without the consent of the petitioners on the basis of counsel's statement could not have dropped the charges and thus disposed of the Revision petition.

(3.) To appreciate the challenge made by the petitioner the facts are important and necessary. Brief facts are that the complaint was lodged by Smt.Kusum respondent No.3 herein against the petitioners and one Sh.Chaman Lal. Petitioner No.1 got married with respondent No.2. It was her case that she was thrown out from the matrimonial home on 3rd March,1987, by respondent No.2. Complainant/ respondent No.3 is the sister- in-law (Jethani) of petitionr No.1. Petitioner No.1 alleges that after having been beaten and thrown out from the matrimonial home, relations between the parties became st"ained and, therefore, to harass the petitioner respondent No.3 lodged the complaint against her and others including Chaman Lal. Respondent No.3 in her complaint alleged that on 20th January, 1989, petitioners alongwith Chaman Lal came to the residence of the complainant to invite her and her father-in-law and sons on the marriage of petitioner No.1's younger brother Prakash Chand. After greetings the petitioner induced the complainant to get her gold ornaments prepared from petitioner No.l's brother and father. Complainant also wanted to get jewellery prepared because her daughter was to get married. Since the complainant was in need of money and intended to get prepared two sets of gold ornaments, she agreed and handed over 22 tolas of gold in the shape of two gold bars to petitioners 1 to 3 and accused Chaman Lal. It is further the case of prosecution that petitioners herein alongwith Chaman Lal represented that out of 22 tolas of gold bars they would prepare two gold ornament sets weighing about ten tolas and for the balance gold they would pay her the market price. But neither the gold ornaments, nor the gold bars nor any money has been returned by the petitioners inspite of the repeated reminders given by the complainant. When the petitioners and Chaman Lal did not return 22 tolas of gold nor the cost for the same complainant lodged this complaint pursuance to which police registered the case under Section 420/120-B read with Section 406/ 120 B, Indian Penal Code Charge was framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioners as well as against Chaman Lal. The petitioners challenged the order of framing the charge by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge. Matter was listed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 22nd May,1995for arguments. That while the arguments were being heard the counsel for the petitioners made a statement. The counsel vide the said statement stated that he would not press the Revision provided charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, was deleted and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate be directed to properly frame the charge under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings under Section 406 may continue against the accused persons. On the basis of this statement of the counsel, which statement was made without the authority of the petitioners Additional Sessions Judge dropped the charge under Section 420/120-B, IPC.