Delhi High Court
Sushma Kumar vs The State & Ors. on 15 December, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 15th DECEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.R.P. 375/2014
SUSHMA KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Neena Malhotra, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI
Vishvendra, PS Seemapuri.
Ms.Jaya Tomar, Advocate for R2
along with R2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner
to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 21.03.2014 of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which application seeking condonation
of delay in filing the revision petition was dismissed. The petition is
contested by respondents No.2 to 4.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the Trial Court records. A case vide FIR No.262/10 under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC PS Seemapuri was registered under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against respondent No.2 alone. Respondents No.3 and 4 were put in
column No.12. By an order dated 20.11.2012, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate discharged the sole accused Daleep Kumar (Respondent No.2).
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl.Revision
No.24/2014 which was not entertained and application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the revision petition was dismissed.
3. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the delay in filing the
revision was due to her ignorance of the order dated 20.11.2012 which
was passed in her absence and the Investigating Officer did not inform her
about the filing of the charge-sheet any time. The revisional court below
did not believe the petitioner as her presence along with her counsel was
specifically recorded in the order dated 20.11.2012. It is emphasized by
the petitioner that she was not present along with her counsel and her
presence has been erroneously recorded.
4. Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that charge-sheet
was filed on 25.01.2012 when the Presiding Officer was on leave.
Cognizance was taken on 17.03.2012 and Investigating Officer was
directed to appear personally in case of non-execution of process for
24.04.2012. On that day, process issued to the respondent was received
back unexecuted. Fresh process through Investigating Officer was ordered
for 17.07.2012. Daleep Kumar (respondent No.2) put appearance that day
and was admitted to bail. Case was adjourned for 25.09.2012 for scrutiny
of documents and arguments on charge. On 25.09.2012, bail bonds were
furnished and case was adjourned for 20.11.2012 for arguments on
charge. Order-sheet does not reflect if 'notice' was ever issued to the
complainant for her appearance any time before the Court. No power of
attorney in favour of any counsel executed by the complainant is on
record. There is some controversy / doubt whether on 20.11.2012 the
complainant along with her counsel had appeared to address arguments on
charge.
5. Without going into that controversy, in my considered view,
the petitioner being the complainant and victim must be given an
opportunity to get her revision petition decided on merits and for that
reason delay of few days in filing the revision petition must not be an
obstacle.
6. In the interest of justice and to enable the petitioner to get the
revision petition decided on merits, the delay in filing the revision petition
is condoned. Revision petition shall be decided on merits by the
Revisional Court. Crl.R.P.375/2014 is allowed. The parties shall appear
before the Revisional Court on 28th January, 2016.
7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 15, 2015 / tr
