The Delhi High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order setting aside a charge. Since the petitioner chose not to press the petition, the court disposed of the matter without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying case.
Petition disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
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.
$~12
MS. HARMANDEEP KAUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Deepak Kumar Sharma and Mr.Ashish Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Satvinder, P.S. Chanakya Puri. Mr.Jugal Wadhwa, Mr.Rishab Bhalla, Mr.Niraj Kumar Mishra, Mr.Siddharth Sharma and Mr.Raghav Goyal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA O R D E R % 01.05.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:22:42
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge as observed in paragraphs 29 and 30 as under:-
“29. Thus, it is very clear that ld. trial court, after the summoning of accused, did not record any evidence u/s 244 Cr.P.C. Thus, there was no material before the ld. trial court which it could have considered in order to frame charges against the accused u/s 246 Cr.P.C and thus, the failure of the ld. trial court to follow the prescribed procedure u/s 244 Cr.P.C is sufficient for setting aside the impugned orders dated 05.08.2015 and the charge as framed on 21.11.2015. They are accordingly set aside.
30. However, as the matter has been pending for more than 12 years and starting the matter afresh would cause further delay. The purpose of Section 244 Cr.P.C is that evidence under that provision has to be recorded in the presence of accused and he has to be afforded an opportunity to cross examine complainant's witnesses. As the charges against the accused have been set aside and the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted has been found to be illegal, it can be safely considered that after summoning of accused, testimony of CW1 as recorded on 03.08.2019 was recorded in his presence. Therefore, the said testimony can be considered as the evidence brought by the complainant u/s 244 Cr.P.C. It is therefore directed that instead of calling CW1 again for her examination in chief, the trial court shall consider the testimony of CW1 as recorded on 03.08.2019 as her examination in chief u/s 244 Cr.P.C and afford accused/ revisionist an opportunity to cross examine CW1. Thereafter, if the complainant wishes to bring any other pre charge evidence, the trial court shall afford such an opportunity to the complainant and after the completion of precharge evidence, the trial court shall proceed to decide the question of framing of charge. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent back. File be consigned to record room.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:22:42
petitioner does not press the present petition, in view of settled legal position in this regard.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
MAY 1, 2024/v
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:22:42
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be disposed of when the petitioner does not press the petition.
Whether the High Court should express an opinion on the merits given the withdrawal of the petition.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ms. Harmandeep Kaur
State
Dr. Amitabh Maini
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
