DIPIKA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed against the order dated 19.2.2015 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Ujjain in Cr. Revision No. 17/2015, whereby learned ASJ reversed the order dated 5.1.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in Cr. Case No.11090/2014.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that the applicant wife lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Ujain against the respondent No.2 husband and her in -laws. On that basis, offence u/s. 498 -A and 506 of the IPC was registered. After investigation, final report has been filed against the respondent No.2 and other co - accused. Respondent No.2 is residing at USA and he was granted bail with condition that he will not leave India without permission of the Court. He was also directed to surrender his passport and visa in the trial Court. Respondent No.2 filed an application for grant of permission to go to USA and for return of his passport and visa. Learned Magistrate rejected the application on 5.1.2015. Against that order, respondent No.2 preferred revision. Learned revisional Court by the impugned order allowed the revision and directed that the applicant shall file a F.D. of Rs.3.00 Lakhs for a period of 3 years in addition to the bail amount. It was directed that on submitting the F.D. the passport and visa shall be returned to the respondent No.2 and he be permitted to travel outside India. Being aggrieved, applicant wife has filed this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No.2 preferred the revision without impleading the applicant as party, therefore, the applicant could not get opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order passed behind the back of the applicant is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that presence of respondent No.2 is required during trial and in the event of end of trial into conviction it would be difficult to bring the respondent No.2 back to India from USA for serving out the sentence. In such circumstances, the order of granting permission to go to USA is not justified and, therefore, it be set aside.