Diksha Raneshwar Dhurvey& Anr vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 1716 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 1716 Del
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2012

Delhi High Court

Diksha Raneshwar Dhurvey& Anr vs State on 13 March, 2012

Author: Suresh Kait

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.M.C. 4000/2011

%            Judgment delivered on: 13th March, 2012

DIKSHA RANESHWAR DHURVEY
& ANR                                  ..... Petitioners
                Through: Mr. Sugam Puri, Adv.

                             Versus
STATE                                              ..... Respondent
                             Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 18.10.2011, passed by ld. MM in case FIR no. 50/2010 registered at PS-Nabi Karim, Under Section 498A/304B/302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners were in column no. 12 and not sent for trial.

3. It is further submitted that ld. MM issued summon to all the accused and notices to their sureties for appearance on 08.11.2011.

4. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have never been arrested in this case and police filed the chargesheet only against other accused persons, however the petitioner were not sent for trial.

5. It is further submitted that if the trial court find any material against them, then the ld. Magistrate should have been passed a reasoned order for summoning the petitioners, who are in column no. 12. However, he fails to do so.

6. It seems that Registry of the Ld. MM has sent summons to all, irrespective, petitioners being in column no. 12 and there is no such order on record.

7. Though I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. MM, however, there seems to be communication gap between the order and the Registry.

8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, summoning order dated 18.10.2011 is hereby quashed qua petitioners.

9. Ld. MM is directed to pass a fresh order indicating specifically, if she was of the opinion to issue summons against the petitioners also, otherwise order dated 18.10.2011 shall remain intact and would apply only on the other accused not on the petitioners.

10. Crl. M.C. 4000/2011 is allowed in the above terms.

11. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 13, 2012 Jg