JASWANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 04.03.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide which, the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in a complaint case under Sections 499/500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC pertaining to Police Station Naraingarh and consequently for upholding her acquittal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2, namely, Om Parkash son of Shri Balak Ram, resident of Village Kalyana, District Ambala, had filed a criminal complaint on 24.03.1992 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra under Sections 499/500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, involving the petitioner, as well as, her husband,Crl. Misc. No.M-16157 of 2006 namely, Tej Ram son of Sh. Sadhu Ram. In his complaint, the complainant levelled the allegation that Tej Ram, husband of the petitioner, in connivance with her, had made a report to the police that some valuable golden ornaments have been stolen from his house in the intervening night of 2/3.11.1990 and the complainant was alleged to be responsible for the said theft since the complainant was working as a Mason in the house of Tej Ram, husband of the petitioner.

(3.) Dissatisfied against the judgment dated 07.08.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the husband of the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision No.1896 of 2002 with a prayer that after such a long time, he should not be directed to face de-novo trial from the stage of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C but this Court, vide order dated 23.08.2004, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the husband of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the remand of the case, it was only the husband of the petitioner, who was to be proceeded against afresh trial after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala on the application moved by the complainant also summoned the present petitioner to face trial along with co-accused Tej Ram, who is none else but her husband. Hence, the summoning order was bad and violative of the judgment dated 18/19.12.2000 passed by the trial Court, vide which, the petitioner was acquitted.