JUDGMENT

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused-Sh. Narender Singh, under Section 397, Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) assailing the Order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 (‘ASJ’), South District, Saket Courts, whereby the learned ASJ set-aside the Order of discharge dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) and directed framing of charge against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present Petition discloses a protracted litigation history. Succinctly stated, it is the case of the Respondent No.2/Complainant- Smt. Indu that she was married to one Pankaj Malhotra on 04.10.1997. Allegedly, on 31.03.2003, a lady named Pooja claimed that Pankaj had obtained an ex-parte Decree of Divorce from Jaipur Court on 04.04.2002 against Indu and Pooja has gotten married to Pankaj on 09.12.2002. It is alleged that the ex-parte divorce Decree had been obtained by Pankaj, without the consent or knowledge of Indu and she was neither served with summons nor aware of the said proceedings. Thus, on a complaint by Respondent No.2, an FIR was registered, being, FIR No. 363/2003 at Police Station Mehrauli for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 493 IPC against her husband-Pankaj alleging that despite obtaining the ex-parte Decree of divorce he continued to establish sexual relations with her.

3. The chargesheet was thereafter filed against the main accused Pankaj and the charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 493 of the IPC on 21.03.2005.

4. During investigation, allegations surfaced that summons purportedly issued by the Jaipur Court, had been shown as served upon the Complainant at Delhi, on the basis of a Service Report dated 05.11.2001 prepared by the present Petitioner/Sh. Narender Singh, who was working as a Process Server in the Nazarat Branch of Tis Hazari Courts at the relevant time, in connivance with Pankaj.

5. It is the case of the Complainant that the Petitioner inserted the word ‘Saket’ on the original summons (in a different handwriting and ink), allegedly to enable self-marking of the process, then he marked the summons to himself as the process server and instead of effecting personal service upon the complainant, he handed over the summons to her husband/Pankaj who obtained her signatures on the summons fraudulently. The Petitioner thereafter prepared and submitted a false service report to the court recording due service upon the Complainant.

6. On the basis of the said allegation, a supplementary charge sheet was filed. Notably, the investigating agency did not find sufficient material to prosecute the Petitioner and gave him a clean chit in the supplementary report.

7. The learned MM, however, disagreed with the conclusion of the investigating agency and, vide Order dated 21.06.2007, observed that the alleged act of the Petitioner whereby he submitted a false report on the summons amounts to fabricating false evidence, as defined under section 192 of the IPC and punishable under sections 193 of the IPC and thus, summoned the Petitioner to face trial for the offence under Section 193 of the IPC.

8. This summoning order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Sessions Court and thereafter before this Court, but both the challenges were dismissed vide Orders dated 11.04.2008 and 03.07.2008, respectively.

9. The learned MM, considered the entire material on record and, after hearing the parties, passed a detailed Order dated 18.07.2012 discharging the Petitioner, on the grounds that: -

a) The original summons, forming the very basis of the accusation of preparation of a false service report, were neither seized from Jaipur Court nor produced during investigation;

b) The reliance on findings recorded in departmental proceedings, wherein the Petitioner was hel