Full Text
$-32 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRLM.C. 3955/2010 with CrI. M.A. 18828-29/2010
SHAILANDRA DIXIT Petitioner
Through Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with IVIr. Pramod Kr. Dubey, Mr. K.K. Singh
Mr.. Kunal Sood, Advocate STATE
22.12.2010 Respondent This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Or. P.O. against order dated 28*'^ August, 2009 of learned Sessions Judge dismissing his revision against the order of framing of charge.
A perusal of list of dates and events would show that order on charge was passed by learned MM on 30"^ July, 2002, however, the charge was actually framed on December, 2005. Against charge a revision was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was got dismissed as withdrawn on
14'^^ February, 2006 with liberty to file revision before the Sessions Court.
Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before learned Sessions Judge, which ith was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 28'
2010:DHC:10603 A 2^ August, 2009 and now after about more than 15 months, this petition under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Krishnan and another vs.
Khshnaveni and another (1997 IV SCC 241) and on Shakuntala Devi and others vs. Chamru Mahto and another [(2009) 3 SCC 310] to argue that this petition was maintainable even after dismissal of the revision petition by
Sessions Court.
A perusal of these two judgments would show that power under Section
ORDER
482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised by the High Court only in rare cases where failure of justice had taken place or where there was misuse of judicial mechanism. This poweris to be exercised sparingly, and rarely. The list of dates and events would show that if there is really misuse of judicial mechanism it is not by the State, but, by the petitioner. The petitioner first filed a revision before this court against the charge which was withdrawn and then a revision was filed beforethe Sessions Judge; After dismissal ofthe revision petition before the Sessions Judge in August 2009, the petitioner has come before this Court after a long period. He waited for 15 months and then approached this court. About 8 years have passed since order on charge was passed. The trial is continuing since August, 2006. I consider it is not that rare case where the court should interfere into the order of charge. Even otherwise, I consider that the Court should rarely interfere into the order on charge. Charge is only an information to the accused that he was going to be tried by the court for such and such offence. It is not a verdict ofguilt ofthe accused. Accused has all liberty to defend himselfduring trial and ifthe court ultimately comes to aconclusion that the accused was not involved in the offence he is bound to be acquitted by the trial court. The petition is hereby dismissed. DECEMBER 22, 2010 acm SHIV NARAYA
JUDGMENT