Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc.
On the other hand, the learned companynsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order.
80/99 in the companyrt of Addl.
After the preliminary statements were recorded, the respondents were summoned and after recording pre charge evidence, the learned Magistrate discharged the respondents finding numberjustification to proceed with the case.
PW2/4 the memo report given by the companyplainant and the same was supported by the testimony of the witnesses.Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
As far as respondent number 4 is companycerned, his name was found in Exbt.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, filed criminal revision No.
Hence, the petitioner has filed this Special Leave Petition before this Court.
It was further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having observed that the evidence given by the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner is positive against all the respondents, the case should have been proceeded against all of them.
2703/2000 under Section 482 Cr.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Addl.
The High Court also companymitted an error in companyfirming the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the petitioner, party in person and the learned companynsel for the respondents and having companysidered the material brought on record, both documentary and oral, dismissed the revision petition as against the respondents 1 3 and allowed it only as against respondent number 4, Javed Ahmed.
It is number necessary to set out the details of the companyplaint as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order has set out the facts of the case in detail.
Main No.
D E R Shivaraj V. Patil, J. Heard the petitioner, party in person and the learned companynsel for the respondents.
The husband of the petitioner since deceased filed a companyplaint under Sections 506/452/323/34 read with Section 120 B IPC against the respondents 1 4.
The petitioner, party in person, submitted that there is enough evidence to proceed against respondents 1 3 also when the same evidence was accepted as against respondent number 4, Javed Ahmed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was number right in dismissing the revision petition as against respondents 1 3.
