- (1.) THIS petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 22nd of November, 2011 vide which the petitioner (Smt. Sitapati) has been summoned as an additional accused to stand trial.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the order has been passed without giving reasons as for commission of what offence the petitioner has been summoned as an accused to stand trial. Having gone through the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge and having heard learned counsel for petitioner & Sri R.K. Dwivedi for respondents, I find that in the operative part of the order, the court below has not specified as to for commission of what offence, the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial. This aspect assumes significance because the other persons have been charged for commission of offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is a lady and on that count her role in commission of the said offence would have to be defined. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The case is remanded back to the court of Sessions to re-address the issue. In case, the petitioner is required to be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court is required to specify as to for commission of what offence, the petitioner is being summoned to stand trial. Impugned order is accordingly quashed.;