SUNIL ISRANI AND OTHERS Vs. KANAK ISRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") lays challenge to order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, setting aside order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad (Annexure P-6) whereby complaint bearing No. 417 dated 9.9.2010 for offence under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code preferred by Kanak Israni (respondent herein), was dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint filed by respondent-Kanak Israni, wife of petitioner Sunil Israni was dismissed by the trial Court after recording preliminary evidence, under Section 203 of the Code with the observations that the allegations set out by the complainant at best disclosed acts of domestic violence in which the complainant has already had the relief. The complainant (respondent herein) preferred a revision against order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, which has been allowed by revisional court, vide impugned order dated 25.2.2011 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is argued that as the revisional court has passed an order adverse to the petitioners and restored the criminal proceedings, which were put to an end by the Judicial Magistrate on 16.12.2010, the impugned order is liable to be set aside being in violation of the provisions of the Code. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Rameshan P.O. and others vs. Rakesh Kumar Yadav and another, 2009 13 SCC 546 and the judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar Soni vs. Jagtar Singh in Crl. Misc. No. M- 13906 of 2011 decided on 31.7.2012.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues with vehemence that the petitioners are not entitled to an opportunity of hearing at any stage before the Court passes an order issuing process calling upon the petitioners to face criminal proceedings. It is further argued that proviso attached to Section 398 of the Code mandates issuance of a notice to an accused in a private complaint, who has been discharged of the offence and the Court intends to pass an order directing any subordinate Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint. In support of his contention he has relied upon Raju vs. Madan Singh alias Bedan Singh, 1997 3 RCR(Cri) 500, Kannan alias Krishnaraj and others vs. R.A.Varadaranjan and another, 1988 CrLJ 605 and A.S.Puri vs. K.L.Ahuja, 1970 CrLJ 1441 (Delhi High Court).