CHARU SMITA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CrI.R.N. 344/97 and CrI.M.No. 4488/97 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the revision at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.9.1996 passed by Shri R.S. Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in CrI.R.No. 28/94 setting aside the order of Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the final report submitted by the investigating Officer. Challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 12.9.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not arrayed as a party to the CrI.R.No. 28/94 and no notice was also issued to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before passing the impugned order directing their trial under Section 506 Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the impugned order qua the petitioners is also violative of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the impugned order qua the petitioners contravenes the mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code. That being so the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a manifest illegality in directing trial of the petitioners under Section 506 Indian Penal Code, which is contrary to the provision of Section 401 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the impugned order, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, cannot be allowed to stand.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed to the extent it directs trial of the petitioners, namely, Dr. Charu Smita Gupta and Jeevesh Sharma for the offence punishable under section 506 Indian Penal Code.