Full Text
Translation output
/M / $-44 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P(Crl.)2050/2013&Crl.M.A.18677/2013
AMARDEEP & ORS. Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.
AMARDEEP & ORS. Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl.Standing Counsel for the State with SI Gaurav, P.S. Jahangirpuri.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl.Standing Counsel for the State with SI Gaurav, P.S. Jahangirpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
% 1L12.2013 This is a writ petition challenging the order dated 03.05.2013, vide which additional charge u/s 376 IPC has been framed by the learned Trial court.
Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl.Standing Counsel for the State appears on advance notice and states that the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground that the appropriate remedy to the petitioner
|| is to file arevision petition ifhe is aggrieved of the framing of the v' additional charge.
The submission has force. If the petitioner is aggrieved by framing of the additional charge u/s 376 IPC, he can file revision petition. But the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
.oiy?r^^Up\- SUNITA GUPTA, J DECEMBER 11,2013/as
2013:DHC:7515
% 1L12.2013 This is a writ petition challenging the order dated 03.05.2013, vide which additional charge u/s 376 IPC has been framed by the learned Trial court.
Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl.Standing Counsel for the State appears on advance notice and states that the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground that the appropriate remedy to the petitioner
|| is to file arevision petition ifhe is aggrieved of the framing of the v' additional charge.
The submission has force. If the petitioner is aggrieved by framing of the additional charge u/s 376 IPC, he can file revision petition. But the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
.oiy?r^^Up\- SUNITA GUPTA, J DECEMBER 11,2013/as
2013:DHC:7515
JUDGMENT