Daljit Singh Narula Vs. State and ors.

Daljit Singh Narula vs State and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Jul 22, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701859

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/701859
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 22, 2005
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. 418/2004
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397 -- Criminal Revision -- Indian Penal Code -- Section 500 -- Defamation -- Complaint case -- Pre-summoning evidence -- Trial Court took cognizance -- Framing of notice against revisionists -- Summoning order not challenged four years ago -- Revision only against framing of charge...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 500

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daljit Singh Narula

Advocate K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. and; M.L. Yadav, Adv

Respondent

State and ors.

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 500
Reported In: 122(2005)DLT366; 2005(83)DRJ28

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 397 -- criminal revision -- indian penal code -- section 500 -- defamation -- complaint case -- pre-summoning evidence -- trial court took cognizance -- framing of notice against revisionists -- summoning order not challenged four years ago -- revision only against framing of charge -- sufficiency of material to issue process -- trial court rightly evaluated the material on record -- interference by the asj was wrong -- order set aside -- revision allowed & disposed of. - - 290/03, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the complaint holding that the summoning order is bad......revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th april, 2004, of the learned additional sessions judge, delhi in cr no. 290/03, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the complaint holding that the summoning order is bad.2.the brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned additional sessions judge, are as under:'that a complaint case for the offences under section 500 ipc was filed by respondent daljit singh narula against the revisionists mohinder singh chhabra, mohinder kaur, amandeep kaur, bhupinder singh @ inderjeet singh and after the pre summoning evidence, led by the complainant/respondent daljit singh narula, the ld.trial court was pleased to take cognizance against the revisionists under section 500 ipc. vide impugned order, the ld.trial court directed for framing of the notice against the revisionists for the offence under section 500 ipc. 3. it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the learned judge at a stage prior to framing of charge has interfered in a matter and has appreciated the entire evidence as if it were the evidence lead during the trial. he submits that such an evaluation of material is not permissible in a revision. 4. counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that even the order issuing process is revisable.5. heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge. it appears to me that the order summoning the accused was made about four years prior and that the same was not challenged. it is only the order directing framing of charge which appears to have been challenged by way of a revision. this, to my mind, is not a revisable order. the revisional court should not have and cannot appreciate material or evaluate the same as it were evidence advanced at the trial. what has been done by the trial court and rightly so, is that it had evaluated the material on record to come to a conclusion that it is sufficient to issue process. interference with this order by the.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1.This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17th April, 2004, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in CR No. 290/03, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the complaint holding that the summoning order is bad.

2.The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as under:

'That a complaint case for the offences under Section 500 IPC was filed by Respondent Daljit Singh Narula against the revisionists Mohinder Singh Chhabra, Mohinder Kaur, Amandeep Kaur, Bhupinder Singh @ Inderjeet Singh and after the pre summoning evidence, led by the complainant/respondent Daljit Singh Narula, the Ld.Trial Court was pleased to take cognizance against the revisionists under Section 500 IPC. Vide impugned order, the Ld.Trial court directed for framing of the notice against the revisionists for the offence under Section 500 IPC.

3. It is contended by Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Judge at a stage prior to framing of charge has interfered in a matter and has appreciated the entire evidence as if it were the evidence lead during the trial. He submits that such an evaluation of material is not permissible in a revision.

4. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that even the order issuing process is revisable.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge. It appears to me that the order summoning the accused was made about four years prior and that the same was not challenged. It is only the order directing framing of charge which appears to have been challenged by way of a revision. This, to my mind, is not a revisable order. The Revisional Court should not have and cannot appreciate material or evaluate the same as it were evidence advanced at the trial. What has been done by the Trial Court and rightly so, is that it had evaluated the material on record to come to a conclusion that it is sufficient to issue process. Interference with this Order by the learned Additional Sessions was wrong. In that view of the matter, I set aside the order dated 17th April, 2004.

6. Crl.Rev.P. 418/2004 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Daljit Singh Narula vs State and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 500

Criminal