Vipul Gupta vs State & Anr. on 6 August, 2021

The petition was filed before the high court of Delhi against an order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Crl.Revision No.77/2021 (Crl.M.C. No.1163/2021) and Crl. Revision No.76/2021 (Crl.M.C. No.1186/2021) by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revisional Court), which was against the orders dated 01.02.2021 22.02.2021 and 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

The leaned revisional court guided the petitioner herein to file an amended memo of parties by impleading the complainant defacto as respondent No.2. It is argued per sub-section 2 to Section 401 Cr P C no order shall be passed to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has a liberty of being heard either personally or through pleader. It is argued the words other person refers to person akin to the accused and it does not include the complainant and hence the learned Revisional Court erred to make the complainant defacto as respondent No.2.

The court agreed with the petitioner if the complainant were allowed to participate before the Session's it shall change the entire nature of the proceedings from criminal to civil and hence shall hamper independence of prosecution. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court is set aside. However, this shall not disentitle the complainant to appear before the learned Revisional Court in the pending revision petitions and to assist the learned APP for the State and / or plead their case through the learned APP.

 

Legal Process Outsourcing This Document

User Comments

Free

Add to Reading List Download Document


×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.