JAI PARKASH Vs. RITU DALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of aforesaid petitions as these have emerged out of same order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent Ritu Dalal against order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri dismissing the criminal complaint No.10-C of 2009 titled Ritu Dalal Vs. Surender Mohan Jain and others has been accepted, the order was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRM-M-15923-2011.

(2.) Ritu Dalal (respondent) filed the criminal complaint against six persons for offence punishable under Sections 186, 193, 199, 294, 332, 341, 354, 380, 500, 504, 506, 508, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The trial Court, after conducting preliminary inquiry wherein the complainant examined herself and witnesses namely Ranjeet Singh ASP CW1, Satish Kumar Inspector CW2, O.P. Sharma ASPO CW3 and Bhagat Ram CW4, did not find sufficient evidence to summon the accused for any of the offences alleged against them and as a result the complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs vide order dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P4). The complainant (respondent herein) filed the revision petition against order dated 06.07.2010 before the Court of Sessions eventually decided by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 09.02.2011.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani is in complete derogation to the provisions of law as the revisional Court cannot substitute itself as the trial Court to pass summoning order. It is further submitted that if the revisional Court finds any error or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the criminal complaint after recording preliminary evidence, in exercise of power under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), the revisional Court can, at best, remit the matter to the subordinate Court for further inquiry but it is not competent to decide the petition in the manner, the revisional Court has done in the present case. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the order impugned, the matter was not reconsidered by the trial Court and it straightway proceeded to record pre-charge evidence in regard to commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 354 and 506 IPC. Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contends that no fault can be found in the impugned order, particularly in the circumstances that the trial Court is already seized of the matter and the case is pending for recording of pre-charge evidence. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.