Raju Vs. the State

Raju vs The State

Disposition Petition disposed of Court Delhi Decided Dec 21, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/708874

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/708874
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: S.K. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Dec 21, 2001
Case Number: Crl. M.(M) No. 4525/2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition disposed of

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 & 228--Quashing of proceedings--Offences under Sections 363/376/34, IPC--Ld. A.S.J. remanded back the tiled of sessions trial to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate--A.S.J. ought to have either taken cognizance or could have sent reference to this Court seeking direct...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition disposed of
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 164, 228 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 342, 363 and 376

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raju

Advocate Dhiraj Yadav, Adv

Respondent

The State

Advocate Pawan Sharma and ; Richa Kapoor, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 164, 228 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 342, 363 and 376
Cases Referred: and Rajinder v. Bashir
Reported In: 96(2002)DLT223; 2002(62)DRJ98

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 482 & 228--quashing of proceedings--offences under sections 363/376/34, ipc--ld. a.s.j. remanded back the tiled of sessions trial to the court of metropolitan magistrate--a.s.j. ought to have either taken cognizance or could have sent reference to this court seeking direction to the m.m. for committal of the case to the sessions court--no provision in the cr.p.c. warranting such an order--enough material against the petitioner, the mm is directed to commit the case of trial--petition disposed of.; ld. a.s.j. ought to have either taken cognizance or could have sent reference to this court seeking direction to the m.m, for committal of the case to the sessions court. there is no provision in the cr.p.c. warranting such an order. however, since there is enough material against the petitioner, the mm is directed to commit the case of trial. petition disposed of. - - 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned metropolitan magistrate......committed rape upon her. after investigations, investigating agency found that the case under section 363/343 ipc is made out against the petitioner-raju. learned additional sessions judge ought to have either taken cognizance or could have sent reference to this court seeking direction to the m.m. for committal of the case to the session's court. however, the case could not be sent back to the committal court either for cognizance or for securing presence of the accused. there is no provision in cr.p.c. warranting such an order. in view of the same, impugned order dated 7.2.1997 is set aside. however, as noticed above, there is enough material against the petitioner to put him on trial along with the main accused. thereforee, the metropolitan magistrate is directed to commit the case for trial including petitioner-raju. petitioner is directed to appear before the court of metropolitan magistrate on the next date fixed. 5. in the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the nature of allegations, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned metropolitan magistrate. 6. file of the case be sent back.7. petition stand disposed of.

Full Judgment

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 226 of theConstitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. forquashing of the proceeding pending in the Court ofMs. Poonam Choudhary, M.M., New Delhi in the case FIRNo. 605/94, under Section 363/376/34 IPC, P.S. AmbedkarNagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 7.2.97, Sh. Sunil Gaur, ASJ, New Delhi, sent back the file of sessions trial to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and passed the following order:

'7.2.97

Accused on bail with counsel.

S.I. Rajesh Kumar (I.O.) is present.

I.O. States that Raju accused is evading arrest and thereforee, challan against him not been filed. Sh. Dhiraj Yadav, counsel for accused said accused undertakes to produce his brother Rajubefore the committal court to produce in accordance with Law. The file be sent back to Ld. committal court.

sd/-

ASJ, N. Delhi'

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and have beentaken through the record. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no provision in Code except Section 228 Cr.P.C. for remanding back the case to the committal court, for the purpose of securing presence of co-accused, against whom there is same material on record. Learned APP for the State on theother hand argued that as per the material is on record, cognizance could validly be taken by Metropolitan Magistrate and even by ASJ, thereforee, the petitioner be directed to appear before the court of sessions, so that the trial can proceed in accordance with law. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on State f M.P. v. Bhorji, 2001 (4) Cri 1990 and Rajinder v. Bashir, 2001 III AD Cri. SC. 384.

4. I have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the petitioner was named in the FIR,although, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that petitioner did not committed rape upon her. After investigations, investigating agency found that the case under Section 363/343 IPC is made out against the petitioner-Raju. Learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have either taken cognizance or could have sent reference to this court seeking direction to the M.M. for committal of the case to the Session's court. However, the case could not be sent back to the Committal court either for cognizance or for securing presence of the accused. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. warranting such an order. In view of the same, impugned order dated 7.2.1997 is set aside. However, as noticed above, there is enough material against the petitioner to put him on trial Along with the main accused. thereforee, the Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to commit the case for trial including petitioner-Raju. Petitioner is directed to appear before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on the next date fixed.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the nature of allegations, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

6. File of the case be sent back.

7. Petition stand disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Raju vs The State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.K. Agarwal, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Code of Criminal Procedu...

Criminal