The High Court of Delhi disposed of a revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by a complainant challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner withdrew the pressing for further relief after the court clarified that the revisional order was tentative and non-binding on the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~106
MRS VEENA SOLANKI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Jauhar with Mr. Jai Prakash, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with SI Chetan Mandia, EOW. Mr. Maninder Singh with Mr. Abhishek Swaroop & Ms. Smriti Asmita, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA O R D E R % 25.07.2018
By order dated 24.11.2014 in criminal case arising out of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) filed by the police on conclusion of investigation into FIR No.13/2004 of Police Station Lodhi Colony, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South, had found charge made out for offences punishable under Sections 120B/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against all the accused persons, i.e. private party respondents herein. The said order was challenged by two revision petitions (CR Nos. 64/2015 and 141/2015) by two sets of accused persons.
The additional sessions Judge, by his order dated 13.04.2017, allowed the revision petitions thereby setting aside the order dated 24.11.2014 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and directing the CRL.M.C. 2598/2017 page 1 of 2
said court to hear the parties afresh on the point of framing of charge and pass a detailed reasoned order. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks to assail the said order of the revisional court, it having been filed by the complainant of the case.
During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his only apprehension is that the observations made by the revisional court may influence the decision of the trial court. This apprehension may be allayed by observation that the order of the revisional court is only tentative in nature and will not be treated as binding by the trial court when it takes a fresh call on the question of charge.
In above view, the counsel for the petitioner now submits he does not press this petition for any further relief. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J
JULY 25, 2018 srb
CRL.M.C. 2598/2017
page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any further relief regarding the tentative observation by the revisional court that does not bind the trial court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs Veena Solanki
State of NCT of Delhi
R.K. GAUBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
