NEERU SHABNAM Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has been laid to orders dated 2.4.2018 and 31.7.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. III, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint case No.52/2 of 2017/14, titled as Manoj Kumar vs. Dr. Neeru Shabnam, whereby learned Court below while dismissing the plea for discharge having been made by the petitioner/accused, fixed the matter for framing additional charge.

(2.) Precisely, the case of the petitioner as projected in the petition at hand and also argued by Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, is that in view of the averments contained in the complaint having been filed by the respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant'), learned Court below ought to have proceeded with the matter as a "Summons case" not as a "warrant case" and as such, impugned orders, as referred hereinabove, are required to be quashed and set-aside. Perusal of the averments contained in the complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section 500 of IPC, clearly suggest that there was no occasion for the Court below to frame charge and subsequently allow the application having been filed by the complainant under Section 216 Cr.P.C for alteration of charge. Undoubtedly, perusal of order dated 2.4.2018 passed by learned Court below suggests that learned Court below initially proceeded to decide the case as a "warrant case" and wrongly stated in the order that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge against the accused.

(3.) Mr. Vishal Bindra, learned counsel representing the complainant while referring to order dated 28.4.2018, contended that since notice of accusation has been put to the petitioner-accused, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the petitioner that Court has proceeded to decide the case at hand as a "warrant case".