(1.) The first information report (FIR) No.407/2015 was registered on 25.04.2015 by Police Station Safdurjung Enclave on the complaint of the petitioner, allegations having been made and the investigation taken up for offences allegedly committed under Sections 354/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The police, having concluded the investigation, submitted report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking trial of one Dr. Naval Bhatia on the accusations for offences punishable under Sections 354/354-A/506/509 IPC. Allegations had also been made by the petitioner against the second respondent and one another (Mamta Jha) but, in the charge sheet, the police reported to the Metropolitan Magistrate that sufficient evidence had not come up to show their complicity in the alleged crimes, they having been kept in column No.12, (i.e. persons not sent up for prosecution).
(2.) The Metropolitan Magistrate considered the charge sheet to above effect and passed the order on 30.03.2016 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 342/354/354-A/506/509/34 IPC and issued summons against all the three above mentioned persons including the second respondent herein. The said order, it may be observed here, was cryptic and would not indicate the reasons as to why the Metropolitan Magistrate was not accepting the charge sheet to the extent the case was directed against the second respondent or against the other individual, i.e., Mamta Jha.
(3.) The second respondent and the said Mamta Jha assailed the order of summoning passed on 30.03.2016 in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by Cr.Revision Petition No.25/2016. The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) accepted the challenge finding the order of the summoning to be perverse in so far as thereby the said two persons had been summoned and, thus, set it aside to that extent and remanded the matter back to the Metropolitan Magistrate for passing a speaking order on the subject.