9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rents and other relatives who were numbering around seven in all. The entire family was dragged in the said case on account of the matrimonial differences/disputes arising between the Petitioner, Smt. Suresh and the Respondent, her husband Vijay Khullar. 3. The learned Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence issued order of summoning for an offence under Section 498A/406 IPC only against Vijay Khullar and his mother, Bimla Rani. Bimla Rani, died during the pendency of the case and thus only one accused Vijay Khullar-Respondent herein was left to face the trial. 4. The complainant, after the accused had put in appearance, was permitted to adduce her evidence at the stage of pre-charge level. After the said stage of adducing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that since an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is very serious in nature and there are no averments, it could not be assumed from certain vague references in the statement of the Petitioner that an offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out by the Petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that no offence under Section 376 of the IPC is made out and accordingly set aside the order of committal and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate to be tried in accordance with law. 7. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has filed the present revision. 8. I have hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was a conviction which was handed down by the Court against Bhupinder Singh for an offence under Section 376 of the IPC by the Trial Court in a police case and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years by the Trial Court which was reduced to three years by the High Court by enhancing compensation from ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 1.00 lac. It was this order of the High Court, which was interfered by the Supreme Court. 10. The noticeable fact in the reported case was that the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage and there was no dispute about the fact that it was a police case which was registered against the Petitioner in the said case. As against this, in the case in hand, it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt that the learned Magistrate seems to have referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in case titled Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 2008 (1) JCC 65. The learned Magistrate seems to be oblivious of the fact that in a warrant trial case instituted on the basis of a complaint at the stage of framing of the charge, quantum of proof which is required for framing of the charge is much higher than in a State case for the purpose of framing of the charge. This would be evident from the fact that Section 245(1) says that in such cases, charge could be framed only when the evidence, which is adduced by the complainant at the pre-charge level, is of such a nature that it is left unrebutted would result in conviction. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
