KAMINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was heard along with two other writ petitions being w. P (Crl.) 130/1999 and W. P (Crl.) 152/1999 which had been filed on behalf of other co-accused. The Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench (V. S. Aggarwal and b. A. Khan, JJ.) hearing all the three writ petitions were in agreement that the writ Petition (Crl) Nos. 130/1999 and 152/1999 were entitled to succeed. Consequently, insofar as the co-accused were concerned, their writ petitions succeeded and the Magistrate's impugned summoning order and pending criminal proceedings against them stood quashed. With regard to the present petitioner (Smt. Kamini), there was a difference of opinion amongst the two Hon'ble Judges. According to V. S. Aggarwal, J. the petitioner's writ petition was liable to be dismissed whereas according to B. A. Khan, J. the present writ petition of Smt. Kamini was also liable to succeed and the proceedings against her were liable to be quashed. In view of this difference of opinion between the said two Hon'ble judges, as indicated in their separate opinions dated 20. 02. 2002, the following order of reference to a third Judge was passed by that Bench on the same date:-

(2.) THE counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The facts are indicated in the said two opinions of V. S. Aggarwal and B. A. Khan, JJ. And need not be repeated in detail. However, for the purposes of felicity, three documents need to be considered and they are the complaint, the Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement of one Smt. Maya Devi and the Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement of smt. Inderjeet Sethi. The same read as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_418_ILRDLH17_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE co-accused were the "above 10 other ladies" referred to in the said complaint. The proceedings against the said co-accused, as indicated above, have been quashed by both the Hon'ble Judges. Though, on different reasoning. While V. S. Aggarwal, J. was of the view that the co-accused were not identified or named, B. A. Khan J. was of the view that apart from the fact that the co-accused were not even named or identified, no cognizable offence was made out against them and their case fell under category 1 provided in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: 1992 Suppl. (1)SCC 335. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, V. S. Aggarwal, J. was of the view that her petition must fail on the basis of the following reasoning:-