Lakhpati Prasad vs Rajni Gupta

R.C. Mishra, J.

Arguments heard.

This is a petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''). The petitioners are aggrieved by the order-dated 19.4.2011 passed by IIIrd ASJ, Sidhi in Cri. Revision No. 31/08, affirming the order-dated 3.1.2008 passed by CJM, Sidhi in Cri. Case No. 470/07, whereby particulars of the offence u/s 498 of the IPC were explained to them for the purpose of recording their plea. In that case, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners only upon respondent''s complaint, that also contained allegations as to offences punishable under Sections 496 and 498 of the IPC against his wife Shashi Gupta.

Main grievance of the petitioners centres around rejection of their application said to have been moved, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing additional documents on record. However, considering the scope of interference under the revisional jurisdiction, rejection of prayer for taking additional documents does not call for any interference.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, though not highlighted by Learned Counsel for the petitioners before the revisional Court or this Court Although, the offence, being punishable with imprisonment extending to 2 years, is triable by summons procedure yet, learned Magistrate proceeded to follow the procedure prescribed for a warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report and recorded evidence of the respondent and his witnesses at the pre-charge stage. However instead of framing a charge, he only explained particulars of the offence, presumably u/s 251 of the Code, which is applicable to a summons trial. Further, by a subsequent order passed on 6.4.2008, he proceeded to convert the warrant trial into summons trial. This glaring irregularity of the procedure deserves to be corrected in exercise of the power of superintendence u/s 483 of the Code (See. Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another,

In such a situation, the order-dated 3.1.2008 (supra), explaining the particulars of the offence and the order-dated 6.4.2008 are hereby set aside and the CJM is directed to frame charge of the offence u/s 498 of the IPC against each one of the petitioners and to afford them an opportunity to further cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses with reference to their statements recorded at the pre-charge stage and to proceed with the trial in accordance with the procedure prescribed for a warrant case.

Needless to say that in the post-charge cross-examination, the petitioners, if they so desire, may also ask questions with reference to any relevant document sought to be tendered in evidence. Copy of this order be forwarded to Sessions Judge, Sidhi for information and necessary action on the administrative side.