MEGH RAJ GUPTA Vs. SUMITA PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT criminal revision was filed by the revisionist Megh Raj Gupta against the respondent Dr. Sumita Prabhakar, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 338 and 420 of I.P.C. The statement of the complainant/revisionist was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statement of Nirmala (victim) was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The documents were also filed in support of the complaint. A report was also called for from the police station concerned, but the same did not support the complainant -story. On the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, having found a prima facie case against Dr. Sumita Prabhakar for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 420 of I.P.C., summoned her to face the trial, vide order dated 01.07.2006. A criminal revision was filed by the accused against the summoning order dated 01.07.2006. Criminal revision was heard and was allowed by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 05.02.2007. The order passed by learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2007, present criminal revision was preferred by the revisionist.

(2.) IT was held by the Hon'ble Apex court in Adalat Prasad vs. Roop Lal Jindal, : (2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1927, that summoning order is an interlocutory order against which only petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Proper course for the accused is to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was reiterated by Three -Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another, : AIR 2004 SC 4711 that, for an aggrieved person, the only course available to challenge the issuance of process under section 204 Cr.P.C. is by way of a petition under section 482 of the Code.

(3.) IT is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the criminal revision preferred by the complainant/revisionist is allowed only on the ground that the criminal revision filed by the accused before the Sessions Judge against the summoning order, was not maintainable. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun for compliance.