Crl.Misc. No.M-26483 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: September 20, 2010. Crl.Misc. No.M-26483 of 2010 . Amarjit Singh and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab. . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sarjit Singh, Sr., Advocate, with Ms.Anjali Khosla, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. This is a petition for transfer of the revision petition filed by the petitioners Amarjit Singh and Gurmeet Kaur, from the Court of Sessions Judge to the High Court. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and their son non-petitioner Rikki Sarao have been booked in a criminal case registered at the instance of Gurpreet Kaur . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-26483 of 2010 alleging that she was taken to U.K., after her marriage to Rikki Sarao and was maltreated there as such, she returned back and lodged the FIR. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Rikki Sarao has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as Criminal Misc. No.M-1268 of 2009, in the High Court in which besides seeking the quashing of FIR, the orders declaring Rikki Sarao a proclaimed offender has been challenged and in the said case further proceedings before the trial Court have been stayed. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners i.e., Amarjit Sarao and Gurmeet Kaur have been charged by the trial Court for offence under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 120-B IPC. A revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order of framing charges. Counsel for the petitioners submits that when the revision petition was taken up for hearing on 10.07.2010, the following order was passed by the revisional Court: - “Present Sh.J.S.Billing, Adv. for the petitioner. Sh.D.K.Garg, Addl.P.P.for the State. It has come to my notice that the other accused have also filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19.01.2009, in Crl.Misc. No.M-1268 of 2009 has stayed the further proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court has seized of the matter and the further order is to be received by . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-26483 of 2010 the learned trial Court. Adjourned to 07.09.2009, for further proceedings and record of lower Court be sent back and report be called if any further order be received of the Hon'ble High Court or not. (Vivek Puri) ASJ/10.07.2010.” A perusal of the above said order indicates that the revisional Court has evaded the adjudication of the revision petition on the ground that a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by one of the accused is pending in the High Court. Taking into consideration, the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the revisional Court has to take into consideration various facts and circumstances including the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and to determine the legality and propriety of the order framing charges against the petitioners. The scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction is different from the scope of judicial review under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Besides this, the case of the petitioner is different from that of the non-petitioner Rikki Sarao whose petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is pending in the High Court though it involves points for similar adjudication but the fact remains that the petitioners have been charge sheeted and charges stand framed against them. The validity of the order of framing charges has to be determined on the basis of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the various documents which form part of the chargesheet. So far as Rikki Sarao is concerned, he being a . . . 3 Crl.Misc. No.M-26483 of 2010 proclaimed offender having not been charged yet, the revisional Court should have independently decided the revision petition qua the petitioners as the said Court has been called upon to determine the legality and propriety before farming charges in the exercise of powers under Section 397 & 399 Cr.P.C. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the revisional Court that it will decide the revision petition of the petitioners irrespective of the pendency of another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court. The decision of the revisional Court will certainly be subject to the supervision of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In case the revisional Court opts to allow the revision petition, the complainant or State might have its remedies available to them in accordance with law and in case the revision petition is dismissed, the petitioners may approach this Court for the adjudication of their petition in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, this petition for transfer, at this stage, is dismissed with a direction to the revisional Court to decide the revision petition on merits irrespective of the pendency of Crl. Misc. No.M-1268 of 2009, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., pending before the High Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 20, 2010. rka . . . 4