Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 2057/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.7401/2011
MADHULIKA RASTOGI Petitioner
Through: In person
(i) CRL.M.C. 2057/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.7401/2011
MADHULIKA RASTOGI Petitioner
Through: In person
VERSUS
AASHISH RASTOGI & ANR Tlirough:
Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PublicProsecutorfor respondent-
State Mr. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent-Aashish Rastogi.
(ii) CRL.M.C. 2923/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.10336/2011
MADHULIKA R ASTOGI Petitioner
Through: In person
Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PublicProsecutorfor respondent-
State Mr. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent-Aashish Rastogi.
(ii) CRL.M.C. 2923/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.10336/2011
MADHULIKA R ASTOGI Petitioner
Through: In person
VERSUS
AASHISH RASTOGI
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.10.2013 Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Mr. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent-Aashish Rastogi
Since the parties to above-captioned two petitions are common and the subject matter of these two petitions arises out of matrimonial discord between the parties, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
Crl.M.Cs.2057 &2923 of2011 Page 1 2013:DHC:6636
\ common order.
In the above-captioned firstpetition, petitioner has beensummoned as an accused vide order of 26"' February, 2009 in Criminal Complaint
No.7/1 Aashish Rastogi v. Ms. Madhulika Rastogi for the offences under
Section 420/468/471/120B/34 of IPC whereas in the above-captioned secondpetition, petitioner's application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed in default. In the above-captioned second petition, trial courtrecordwas summoned and it was perused.
Both the sides were heard and the material on record has been perused. In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of complaint in question is sought on merits while taking various grounds. The pleas on which quashing ofthe complaint in question and proceedings arising out of it is sought, raises mixed questions of fact and law and it cannot be said that while taking the complaint as it is, no case is made out against petitioner. Appropriate course to adopt in a situation like the instant one is to permit petitioner to cross-examine respondent-complainant during the recording of pre-charge evidence and thereafter, further permit petitioner to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of charge. Needless to say that trial court will consider the pleas soraised atthe hearing onthe point of charge and shall deal with them by passing a speaking order. While refraining to quash the complaint in question andthe impugned orderin the above-captioned first petition, the above-captioned first petition and the application are disposedof with aforesaid liberty to petitioner.
So far as above-captioned second petition is concerned, I find that petitioner is claiming that due to her ill health, she could not pursue her
CrlMCs.2057 &2923of2011 application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing both the sides in the above-captioned second petition, I find that there is no reason to disbelieve petitioner when she pleads inability on account of ill health to pursue her application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, impugned order of 2*^^ February, 2010 vide which petitioner's application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed in default, is quashed and petitioner's application of 14'"^
September, 2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is revived for being proceeded with in accordance with the law.
The above-captioned second petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 08, 2013 s Crl.M.Cs.2057 &2923 of2011 ' \
08.10.2013 Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Mr. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent-Aashish Rastogi
Since the parties to above-captioned two petitions are common and the subject matter of these two petitions arises out of matrimonial discord between the parties, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
Crl.M.Cs.2057 &2923 of2011 Page 1 2013:DHC:6636
\ common order.
In the above-captioned firstpetition, petitioner has beensummoned as an accused vide order of 26"' February, 2009 in Criminal Complaint
No.7/1 Aashish Rastogi v. Ms. Madhulika Rastogi for the offences under
Section 420/468/471/120B/34 of IPC whereas in the above-captioned secondpetition, petitioner's application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed in default. In the above-captioned second petition, trial courtrecordwas summoned and it was perused.
Both the sides were heard and the material on record has been perused. In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of complaint in question is sought on merits while taking various grounds. The pleas on which quashing ofthe complaint in question and proceedings arising out of it is sought, raises mixed questions of fact and law and it cannot be said that while taking the complaint as it is, no case is made out against petitioner. Appropriate course to adopt in a situation like the instant one is to permit petitioner to cross-examine respondent-complainant during the recording of pre-charge evidence and thereafter, further permit petitioner to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of charge. Needless to say that trial court will consider the pleas soraised atthe hearing onthe point of charge and shall deal with them by passing a speaking order. While refraining to quash the complaint in question andthe impugned orderin the above-captioned first petition, the above-captioned first petition and the application are disposedof with aforesaid liberty to petitioner.
So far as above-captioned second petition is concerned, I find that petitioner is claiming that due to her ill health, she could not pursue her
CrlMCs.2057 &2923of2011 application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing both the sides in the above-captioned second petition, I find that there is no reason to disbelieve petitioner when she pleads inability on account of ill health to pursue her application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, impugned order of 2*^^ February, 2010 vide which petitioner's application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed in default, is quashed and petitioner's application of 14'"^
September, 2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is revived for being proceeded with in accordance with the law.
The above-captioned second petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 08, 2013 s Crl.M.Cs.2057 &2923 of2011 ' \
JUDGMENT