CRL.REV.P. 623/2008 $~21 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 623/2008 LALITA YADAV ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.D. Mehra, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Mehra, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta & Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP for the State. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pramod Kr. Dubey, Sri Singh & Mr. Vivek Jain, Advocates for respondents no. 2 to 9. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 22.04.2010 The matter has been heard at length. The petitioner in ground 7 (ii) has specifically quoted the averments and allegations made in the charge-sheet against the respondents who have been discharged. The said allegations have been examined and considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the allegations against Hukam Singh & Priyavarat are too general and not specific and states that he is not pressing the present revision petition against them. However, allegations made against Sukhma Devi, Tek Chand, Jai Kishan, Magan, Jagram @ Jagbir & Vijay are in detail and specific. It may be relevant to state here that these persons had earlier also filed a revision petition before this court for quashing of FIR No. 177/2004, under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings. One of the contention raised in the writ petition was that the said persons are distant relatives and not members of the immediate family. Learned single Judge in his order dated 28.02.2008 did not accept and had rejected the said contention after making reference to the FIR and the charge-sheet. It was observed that there were specific allegations and not mere casual or general allegations. Court also noticed that though, distant relatives of the husband had been roped in, but this had to be viewed in the context that the CRL.REV.P. 623/2008 family members lived in villages within the National Capital Region of Delhi and the prevalent social milieu in that setting facilitates constant interaction between them. Learned Judge while dismissing the petition had stated that the observations made in the order would not influence the trial court at any of the subsequent stages and it was stated that parties would be entitled to raise all contentions at the time of arguments on charge. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order dated 19.07.2008 has discharged the said private respondents without discussing and meeting with the requirements of Section 239 & 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which specifically requires that if an accused is discharged, reasons for the same shall be recorded. As noticed above, there are specific allegations against the private respondents in the charge-sheet. At this stage, it is not possible to come to a conclusion or decide whether these allegations are false or correct. This requires evidence. At this stage only a prima facie view is to be taken. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 19.07.2008 discharging Sukhma Devi, Tek Chand, Jai Kishan, Jagram @ Jagbir and Vijay are set-aside. The learned trial court will frame charges on the basis of specific allegations against the said persons after examining the contentions of the parties. As conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition against Hukum Singh and Priyavarat is dismissed. Petition is disposed of. Trial court record will be sent back. SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 22, 2010 rs