Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 04.03.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, vide which, the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in a complaint case under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code pertaining to Police Station Naraingarh and consequently for upholding her acquittal.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2, namely, Om Parkash son of Shri Balak Ram, resident of Village Kalyana, District Ambala, had filed a criminal complaint on 24.03.1992 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, involving the petitioner, as well as, her husband,Crl. Misc. No.M-16157 of 2006 namely, Tej Ram son of Sh. Sadhu Ram. In his complaint, the complainant levelled the allegation that Tej Ram, husband of the petitioner, in connivance with her, had made a report to the police that some valuable golden ornaments have been stolen from his house in the intervening night of 2/3.11.1990 and the complainant was alleged to be responsible for the said theft since the complainant was working as a Mason in the house of Tej Ram, husband of the petitioner. During investigation, the complainant was found to be innocent by the police. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and her husband that they have committed offence under Sections 499/500 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code as the petitioner and her husband defamed the complainant and they caused harm to his reputation. On the basis of the impugned complaint, the petitioner and her husband were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate and charges under Sections 499/500/34 Indian Penal Code were framed against them. The petitioner and her husband, in support of their defence version, examined Ram Sarup as DW-1, Murari as DW-2, whereas, the husband of the petitioner was examined as DW-3. The trial Court after assessing the evidence available on record, passed the judgment dated 18/19.12.2000, whereby, the petitioner was acquitted by recording an observation that there is no evidence of conspiracy in order to connect her with the alleged commission of offence, whereas, the husband of the petitioner was recorded to be guilty and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Since, the husband of the petitioner had been recorded to be guilty under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case of husband of the petitioner back to the Judicial Magistrate with a direction to record his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code since a material irregularity had taken place because the incriminating material which had appeared in Crl. Misc. No.M-16157 of 2006 the prosecution evidence had not been put to him in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code.
(3.) Dissatisfied against the judgment dated 07.08.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the husband of the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision No.1896 of 2002 with a prayer that after such a long time, he should not be directed to face de-novo trial from the stage of recording of his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but this Court, vide order dated 23.08.2004, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the husband of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the remand of the case, it was only the husband of the petitioner, who was to be proceeded against afresh trial after recording his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala on the application moved by the complainant also summoned the present petitioner to face trial along with co-accused Tej Ram, who is none else but her husband. Hence, the summoning order was bad and violative of the judgment dated 18/19.12.2000 passed by the trial Court, vide which, the petitioner was acquitted.;