Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C 3106/2013 & Crl.M.A.11598/2013 DEEPANJAN LAHIRI Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates
(i) CRL.M.C 3106/2013 & Crl.M.A.11598/2013 DEEPANJAN LAHIRI Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vikas (ii) CRL.M.C. 1347/2012 & CrLM.A.4767/2012
ANSHUMAN MATHUR Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vikas (ii) CRL.M.C. 1347/2012 & CrLM.A.4767/2012
ANSHUMAN MATHUR Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through; Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vikas
Through; Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vikas
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
04.02.2015 In the above captioned two petitions, challenge is to the impugned summoning order of7^ February, 2008 vide which petitioners have been summoned as accused in FIR No.411/2001 under Sections 420/406/120-
04.02.2015 In the above captioned two petitions, challenge is to the impugned summoning order of7^ February, 2008 vide which petitioners have been summoned as accused in FIR No.411/2001 under Sections 420/406/120-
CRL.M.C. 3106/2013 & 1347/2012 Page 1
2015:DHC:10641 B ofIPC registered at P.S. Saraswati Vihar, Dellii.
Since the challenge to the impugned orderin boththesepetitions is on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both thesepetitions were heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.
Upon investigation in the FIR in question, it was found that the eividence against petitioners was deficient and so, petitioners were put in column No.12 of the charge-sheet. However, trial court vide order of 7^
February, 2008 has summonedpetitioners as accused.
Learned counsel for petitioners has placed on record photocopy of the certified copy of aforesaid summoning order of February, 2008 which is hand written and not so legible. It is cryptic one. To say the least, once a person is put in columnNo.12 of the charge-sheet, then trial court must pass a summoning order which discloses application of mind.
Impugned order does not do so and so, it is quashed with directionto trial court to decide as to whether petitioners have to be summoned as accused or not.
With aforesaid direction, the above captioned two petitions are disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2015 s
2015:DHC:10641 B ofIPC registered at P.S. Saraswati Vihar, Dellii.
Since the challenge to the impugned orderin boththesepetitions is on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both thesepetitions were heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.
Upon investigation in the FIR in question, it was found that the eividence against petitioners was deficient and so, petitioners were put in column No.12 of the charge-sheet. However, trial court vide order of 7^
February, 2008 has summonedpetitioners as accused.
Learned counsel for petitioners has placed on record photocopy of the certified copy of aforesaid summoning order of February, 2008 which is hand written and not so legible. It is cryptic one. To say the least, once a person is put in columnNo.12 of the charge-sheet, then trial court must pass a summoning order which discloses application of mind.
Impugned order does not do so and so, it is quashed with directionto trial court to decide as to whether petitioners have to be summoned as accused or not.
With aforesaid direction, the above captioned two petitions are disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2015 s
CRL.M.C. 3106/2013 & 1347/2012 Page 2
2015:DHC:10641
2015:DHC:10641
JUDGMENT