SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA,J. -
(1.) MR . Sandeep Tandon and Ms. Tejaswana Sagar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent no.1. Admit the petition. Issue notice to respondent no.2, calling his counter affidavit, if any, within three weeks. List thereafter.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the challenge herein is to the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, whereby he has refused to discharge the petitioner Km. Divya Jain, D/o Sudhir Jain, from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 474, 475 r/w Section 120-B IPC. The submission of said chargesheet has engendered the criminal case no.13 of 2012 (old No.3421 of 2009).
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the genesis of dispute between the petitioner and her father on one hand and respondent no.2 on the other, relates to the property situated at 31 Balbir Road, Dehradun, which was inherited in the year 1994 by Sudhir Jain (father of petitioner) from Chetan Lal on the strength of a 'will'. It is pertinent to mention that the agreement to sale was executed by Sudhir Jain, being the power of attorney of Mr. Chetan Lal Jain, in favour of brother of respondent no.2 for only one Bigha of land. The version of respondent no.2 is that the possession upon the entire land and building, making part of the property at 31 Balbir Road, was delivered to him at the time of execution of agreement to sale itself. Thereafter the first information report was lodged by respondent no.2 making several allegations against the petitioner Km. Divya Jain and her father, which culminated into the submission of impugned chargesheet, as indicated above.
The accused persons resisted the levelling of charge by moving application for their discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C., and vide order dated 11.1.2011, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, discharged the petitioner, whereas ordered to level charge against her father Sudhir Jain. Subsequently thereafter, two revisions, assailing the common order passed by the Magistrate dated 11.1.2011, were preferred; one by Sudhir Jain bearing no.42 of 2011 seeking his discharge and setting aside of impugned order, and another by Rajesh Kumar Suri bearing no.32 of 2011, challenging the discharge of petitioner Divya Jain. Both the revisions were adjudicated by Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide common judgment and order dated 27.6.2011, thereby remanding the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, directing him to provide opportunity of hearing to the complainant, State and also to the accused and then only, to pass fresh orders as envisaged in the provisions of Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. Now, in pursuance of the directions issued by the revisional court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, vide the impugned order dated 25.6.2011, refused to discharge the petitioner u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and has directed for levelling of the charge against her also. Having a look upon the impugned order, it is hereby directed that till the next date of listing, further proceedings of criminal case no.3421 of 1999 (New No.13 of 2012), State Vs. Sudhir Jain and another, so far as levelling of charge against the petitioner Km. Divya Jain under the aforesaid sections is concerned, shall remain stayed.;