Meera v. State & ORS.

$~32 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 151/2018 & Crl. M.A. no. 636/2018 (stay) MEERA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anil Dwedi, Adv.

versus STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP Mr. Ajit Dayal, Mr. Awijit Paliwal and Ms. Shabana, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 09.04.2018 In the original complaint, petitioner had impleaded Ms. Jeetu, daughter of Shri Ram Dev Sharma, as accused no. 5. Subsequently, she filed an application before the trial court stating therein that Jeetu is also known as Geetu Vashishth @ Geetu Abhishek Mishra @ Geetu Sharma, therefore, summons be issued in all the names of accused no. 5. In the memo of parties, parentage of Jeetu has been given as Shri Ram Dev Sharma. As per the petitioner, accused no. 5 Jeetu is also known by the different names as detailed above.

Parentage of Jeetu has remained unchanged.

Accordingly, no prejudice will be caused if all the names of

Jeetu are mentioned in the memo of parties and summons are issued accordingly.

In my view, trial court ought to have permitted the amendment in the memo of parties and mentioned all the names in the summons. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is permitted to file amended memo of parties before the trial court in terms of this order. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

APRIL 09, 2018 r.bararia