CRL.REV.P. 282/2019 Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.REV.P. 282/2019

Date of Decision:26.07.2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

LALITA

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Advocate and

Ms. Richa Dhawan , Advocate

versus

STATE & ORS

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State

Mr. Archit Upadhyay, Advocate (DHCLSC)

for R2 and R3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w

Section 482 CrPC assailing the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the

Special Judge (P.C. Act) CBI-01 (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.65/2018.

2. The facts of the prosecution, as noted by the trial court, are that the

Respondents No.2 and 3 faced trial in the FIR No.05/2009 registered

under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC at P.S. Nabi Karim. After the trial, vide

judgment dated 04.10.2018, the Respondents No.2 and 3 were acquitted

of all the charges by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. The order of acquittal was challenged by the revisionist/

complainant by way of a Criminal Appeal No. 65/2018 filed under

Proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Court of Sessions.

CRL.REV.P. 282/2019 Page 2 of 10

4. Learned counsels for the parties submitted that the Special Judge,

without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the appeal with

liberty to file the same before this Court. The relevant portion of the

order passed by the Special Judge is reproduced below:-

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.B. Gupta &Ors. Vs.

State Crl. RevisionPetition No. 147/2012 decided on

17.05.2016. Reliance was placed on the following judgments:-

CRL.REV.P. 282/2019 Page 3 of 10

order.”

5. While passing the above order, the Special Judge had relied upon a

decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in J.B. Gupta

(supra). In the captioned case, the accused persons were acquitted by the

Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC. In the

appeal filed by the private respondents, the order of acquittal was set

aside by the Addl Session Judge. In the revision petition filed by the

accused, a Single Bench of this court, while relying on decisions

rendered in Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) reported as

(2013) 2 SCC 17 and Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported

as (2015) 15 SCC 613, held that the order of acquittal passed by the

Magistrate could not have been challenged before the Addl Session

Judge and the only remedy available was to obtain leave to appeal from

the High Court.

6. In the case of Subhash Chand (supra), the criminal proceedings

were instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the Public Servant

under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the PFA Act). The

point which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was

378(1)(a) CrPC or to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code”.

It was held that:-

CRL.REV.P. 282/2019 Page 4 of 10

CRL.REV.P. 282/2019 Page 5 of 10

7. In the case of Satya Pal Singh (supra), the issue involved was

whether the definition of ‘victim’ would include father of the deceased

and whether in an appeal against acquittal, filed under proviso to Section

372 CrPC, the leave of the court was required to be obtained in terms of

Section 378(3) CrPC ? In the captioned case, the accused after facing the

trial for offences punishable unde