Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPTI DEVESH,
ADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL FASTRACK
COURT ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 520/24
CNR NO. DLND01-007628-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Joginder Singh
The then SHO, PS Sagarpur (Distt. South West)
Now posted as
I/C Rohini, Lockup, NAV
Rohini Delhi-110085
Phone No. 9911403848
…... Revisionist
Versus
1. Rajni Karki W/o J.B. Karki
R/o Green View Apartment,
Flat No. 462, Pocket-2, Sec-19, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110071
…..Respondents No. 1
2. J.B. Karki S/o Sh. Pal Singh
R/o Green View Apartment,
Flat No. 462, Pocket-2, Sec-19, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110071
…..Respondents No. 2
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Instituted on : 21.09.2024
Reserved on : 13.08.2025
Pronounced on : 13.08.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. Part arguments on revision petition heard today.
2. Further case laws furnished on behalf of the respondents.
3. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the
revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
15.03.2023 of the Ld. Trial Court, by way of which, the revisionist
had been summoned.
4. Bare perusal of the said order dated 15.03.2023 shows that the
Ld. MM did neither mentioned in her order as to for what offences the
complainant (respondents herein) were seeking summoning of
accused (revisionist herein) nor has she mentioned the exact offences
for which she has summoned the revisionist in the complaint case.
Perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the complainant had
sought summoning of accused for offences punishable u/s
506/509/220 IPC, as per para 6 of the complaint. The said offences
include warrant triable offences also. Thus, the accused would be
required to participate in pre-charge evidence before the Ld. Trial
-- 2 of 4 --
3
Court, wherein, on cross-examination of complainant witnesses, he
might also disclose his defense. In this case, when the impugned order
does not clarify the exact offences for which accused has been
summoned, then how the accused would prepare his defense for the
purpose of cross-examining witnesses is not understandable.
5. Eventhough it may not be the requirement of section 204
Cr.P.C. to mention the exact offences for summoning accused, but the
practical aspects of trial ought to be taken in consideration also.
Furthermore, it is well-settled law that a court order should be clear
and unambiguous and be a speaking order for the purposes of
appellate hierarchy of our system. For the reasons already discussed
above, there is ambiguity in the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 as
to exactly for what offences the accused has been summoned to face
trial. Without clearing this ambiguity in the impugned order, no order
on merits on the present revision petition can be passed as even the
revisionist court cannot appreciate without exact mentioning of the
offences in the impugned order, whether the ingredients of offences
for which revisionist is summoned, were made out or not.
6. Thus, in the opinion of this court, impugned orders incomplete
and ambiguous to the extent that it does not mention the specific
offences for which revisionist has been summoned, thereby
handicapping the revisionist in preparing his defense and also
handicapping this court to determine whether the summoning itself
was correct or not.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
7. Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed off with
directions for remanding back the matter to Ld. Trial Court for
clarifying the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, as to for what
offences exactly the revisionist has been summoned. After the said
clarification, the revisionist shall be at liberty to challenge the
impugned order alongwith the clarificatory order, if any, as per
applicable laws.
8. TCR be sent back for date already fixed i.e. 03.11.2025 with
copy of present order for information and compliance.
9. File be consigned to record room for compliance, if any.
(Deepti Devesh)
ASJ/Spl.FTC/PHC/13.08.2025
-- 4 of 4 --