Suresh Kait, J.

1. First three petitions amongst the above noted four petitions have been filed under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 (g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and summoned the petitioners / accused, namely, Sarat Chander, Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

2. Vide the above noted petitions, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No. 610/2007 registered at PS-Malviya Nagar, Delhi.

3. Crl. Revision Petition No. 208/2012 has been filed by the State for quashing the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM in the complaint case No. 77/2007 filed by the complainant.

4. Since the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No 610/2007 vide all the above noted petitions, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.

5. The factual matrix of the cases are that the respondent No. 2 / complainant lodged a complaint on 24.05.2007 directly with Commissioner of Police against the petitioners namely Sarat Chander, Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur for committing gangrape upon her on 08.10.2006. Thereafter respondent no. 2 / complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2007 before the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

6. Vide order dated 04.06.2007, Ld. ACMM called for action taken report from DCP concerned and the matter was directed to be listed on 18.06.2007. Meanwhile, FIR No. 610/2007 was registered on 09.06.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (g)/354/506/384/34 IPC against all three petitioners noted above.

7. The investigation of the above-noted FIR was undertaken by Special Investigation Team (Crime Branch). After the investigation, which continued for almost 3 years, police filed a final report of cancellation / closure before the court of Ld. ACMM on 02.06.2010.

8. Case of the petitioners is that ld. ACMM has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 (g) IPC and summoned the petitioners / accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. completely ignoring the fact that Special Investigation Team (Crime Branch) has thoroughly investigated into the allegations leveled by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant filed a complaint dated 24.05.2007 belatedly after more than 8 months for an incident which alleged to have taken place on 08.10.2006.

9. Further it is stated that systematic and thorough investigations were carried out by recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of independent persons, conducting medical examination, collecting FSL reports, polygraphs test, DNA profile, collecting and examining call details of the respondent no. 2 / complainant, petitioners and other related persons.

10. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Dubey, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners Praveen Bhargava and Ramesh Thakur, has submitted that Praveen Bhagava is aged about 54 years and is residing at S-177, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. He is an Engineer by profession and has been working with Delhi Jal Board since 1983 in various capacities and presently posted as Superintending Engineer (Project) Water-I with Delhi Jal Board .

11. Petitioner Ramesh Thakur, is aged about 52 years and is residing at B-27, Sagar Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi. He is also an Engineer by profession and has been working with Delhi Jal Board since 1989 and presently posted as Superintending Engineer (Northwest Circle) with Delhi Jal board.

12. Third petitioner Sarat Chander is also an Engineer by profession and presently staying at E-14/3, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana and posted as Chief Engineer (Projects) in Delhi Jal Board.

13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigation has revealed that the respondent no. 2 / complainant is