← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./2598/2017

Mrs Veena Solanki v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS

2018-07-25Hon'Ble Mr. Justice R.K.Gauba2 pages

$~106 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2598/2017 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

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