Jaspreet Kaur v. State & ORS

$~4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 5803/2014 JASPREET KAUR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Arya, and Ms.Sarika Soam, Advs.

versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP for State SI N.L.Yadav, PS Kirti Nagar Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Adv. for R-2 to R-7

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

O R D E R

% 16.09.2016 1.

Impugned order dated July 02, 2013 reads as under:- "02.07.2013 Fresh charge sheet/challan filed. It be checked and registered as per rules.

Present: Ld.APP for the State Accused Bal Preet Singh has been chargesheeted and put in column No.11.

Accused Sarabjeet Singh; Mrs.Manjeet Kaur, Gaganpreet Singh, Surender Singh, Smt. Satinder Kaur and Mrs.Jaspreet Kaur @ Jolly have not been chargesheeted and put in Column No.12.

I have perused the contents of the charge sheet. I have also heard the submissions advanced.

I take cognizance for the offence u/s 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.

punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC against the accused Balpreet Singh.

Let, summons be issued against the accused Balpreet Singh to be served through IO/SHO concerned to secure his appearance before the Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 10.10.2013.

(Colette Rashmi Kujur) MM(Mahila Court-02) West/THC : 02.07.2013"

2.

Grievance of the complainant is that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acted mechanically with reference to the charge-sheet filed ignoring the specific allegations in the complaint which resulted in FIR No.142/2012 being registered.

3.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 who are the father-in-law, brother-in-law, younger brother of the father-in-law and the wife of the younger brother of the father-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant states that rather than invite any prima-facie expression from this Court, on instructons from said respondents, he consents to the petition being disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated July 02, 2013 to the extent it mechanically proceeds to take cognizance and issue summons only to the husband and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is thus directed to consider the matter afresh and pass a suitable order.

4.

Learned counsel for the complainant consents. 5.

Learned counsel for the State also consents.

6.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of directing learned Metropolitan Magistrate to reconsider the charge-sheet filed by the petitioner and not act mechanically by simply noting which name is put in

which column. It is the duty of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to look into the complaint and other material collected by the prosecution and filed along with the charge-sheet and then take a conscious and reasoned decision as to whether case is made out against persons or to proceed against for offences punishable under the Penal Code.

7.

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 dkb