Mr. Ankur Mahindroo with Mr.Aayush Chandra, Advs. v. DEEPAK ARORA

1. Vide this petition, the petitioner has sought relief as under:- (a) Recall, set aside & quash order dated 01.11.2010 passed by Shri C K Chaturvedi, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in Cr!. Revision No.10812010 titled as Sh. Deepak Arora Vs. State & Others; and (b) Expedite the hearing of compliant case no.261212008 titled as Smt. Ved Prabha & Anr. Versus Shri Om Prakash & Others and to direct the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi to dispose of the case within 6 months in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case;

2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that on his complaint being filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences committed by the accused person, Id. Magistrate has passed the order dated 01.04.2010 and issued summon against the respondent No.2. 2011:DHC:9974

3. Vide order underdated 06.08.2010, Id. MM passdd the order as ru "An application u/s 362 Cr.P.C. had been filed se e king correction of order dated 01.04.2010, whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken only against accused no.2, Sant Singh Arora who has been directed to be summoned on PF/RC/Courier. Upon having perused the complaint and considering the allegation against accused no.3, DeepakArora for having filed the application Under Order 71 Rule 11 along with father Sant Singh Arora and the documents placed on record by which interest has been created in favour of, accused no.3, Deepak Arora in the Il disputed property, I am of the view that at th'.is stage considering that accused no.3, Deepak Aroa w h o is beneficiary on the basis of impugned documénts, sufficient ground is made for summoning theaccUsed, hence, I take cognizance of the offence as mentioned in the summoning order dated 01.04.10, again st co accused Deepak Arora and he along with accused Sant Singh Arora be summoned on PF/RC for 27.09110." Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the revisiop petition in the Sessions court

5. Vide order dated 01.11.2010, Id. District judge-III allowed revi s ion petition of the respondent (petitioner therein).

6. Further submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, it is violation of the natural ju stice.

7. I would not comment upon the judgment passed by the Id. District Judge-11 (North) Delhi. However, I am of the ^^ view that the petitioner should have been given hearing at least before passing the impugned order. I note, notice have not been issued.

8. Accordingly, order dated 01.11.2010 is set aside and the Crl.Rev.P.108/2010 is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the Id. District Judge-Il on September, 2011 for directions.

8. In view of above, Criminal M.C.No.174/2011 & Criminal M.A.1416/2011 are disposed of.

9. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT,J SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 vld