SAVITRI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Savitri Devi, the present petitioner along with her son Naresh Kumar, since deceased, wassummoned on a complaint by respondent No. 2, Smt. Nupur,for allegedly having committed an offence punishable underSection 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. During the trialthe petitioner moved an application on 17-5-1986 for the grantof exemption from personal appearance. The learned trial courtvide its order dated 17-5-1986 allowed the application andexempted her personal appearance in Court till further orders.The complainant, Smt. Nupur, on 8-9-1986, moved an application before the trial court praying for the cancellation of theexemption from personal appearance granted to the petitionerand for the issue of directions of her appearance on .every dateof hearing. This applicati was dismissed vide order dated19-11-1986. Feeding aggrieved, the complainant approachedthe Court of. Sessions by way of filing a revision petition. ShriT. S. Oberoi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi accepted therevision petition and modified the order of the trial court tothe extent that the general exemption from personal appearanceto the petitioner was not justified, however, her inability toattend on a particular date for any specific reason to may belooked into and granted by the learned Magistrate. It is againstthis order, the petitioner has approached this Court for settingaside the impugned order.

(2.) The first and, foremost contention of the petitioner isthat the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not and should.not have entertained the revision petition in as much as theorder of the trial court was interlocutory one and a revisionpetition was not maintainable under sub-section (2) of Section397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the discretionexercised by the learned lower court should not have beeninterferred with, which on the face of it is just proper and legalunder the circumstances of the case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent does not seeeye to eye to the submissions made in support of the petition.According to her, the order granting exemption to the petitioner is a final order in as much as it has finally determinedthe rights of the parties with 'regard to their personal appearance. Her further submission is that there is no provision under which the accused can be granted general exemption, whilethe complainant in required to attend the proceedings on everydate of hearing. The discretion has rightly been exercised andthe impugned order does not call for any interference.