PRAMILA SONI Vs. MALUK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this revision against the order of the revisional Court whereby the order passed by the trial Court to summon the respondents is quashed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a complaint under sections 147, 148, 451, 506B and 323 of the India Penal Code was filed by police of police station Vidisha in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. At the time of framing charge Maluk Chand and Rajendra Kumar were discharged and charges were framed under sections 323, 451 and 506 Indian Penal Code against the remaining accused persons. The evidence of complainant Pramila Soni was recorded on 26.3.1996. After the deposition of complainant Pramila Soni, Public Prosecutor moved an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for taking cognizance against the respondents who were earlier discharged. The trial Court subsequently allowed the application and directed summoning the respondents. This order was challenged in revision and revisional Court held that once Court has discharged the accused, they cannot be summoned again under section 319 of the Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaptansingh and others v. State of M.P. and another, reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Case 185, and submitted that in this case revision against acquittal was entertained by the High Court and the order of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Now the law is settled that if the complainant is an aggrieved party he has a right to challenge any order, which may affect the case of prosecution.