Preeti Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi

ORDER : SUNITA GUPTA, J.

¶1Feelingaggrievedby the summoningorder dated 8"^ July, 2014 and consequentialframing of charge dated 13"^ October, 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court-II Crl.Rev.Pet. 601/14 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.83/2013 arisingout ofFIR 248/09u/s 376 IPC, presentRevisionPetitionsNo. 601/2014 and 656/2014 have been filed by the petitioner.

¶2Facts gemianeto the filingofthe presentpetitionliein a nanw compass. FIR in the instantcase was registeredon the basis of the statementof the prosecutrixwhereinshe allegedthat herhusbandhad suffered heart attack, as such, she was in financial difficulty. She met one Daya Nand Khatri at3ME^Iio^'it'ar'^4appris him about her >5. problems. He offep^'hjeraj^laciybfRs?50pO/-besidestransportation 4^ ^ ''' charE About 5-' fftnet Preeti and cariie to know ..:5 of Oriflame,/Cohn'aught Places;^ aboutherbecausePreetiwas ail^riiirl^cpaintanceofKhatrfjuncleand Khatriuncle^oldher not to t^lkloi^riyyrj'e;.withouthis permission. On 26"' Novemb^, 2009vShe,feacib,l| ..CHo^ Metro Station at •A 'yc-.-V. i;- /•;' about 11:00AMRh%|^ev9i>v^atriunclewasmot^i^eS^^^^^ and told her that he would rlMfrafleS^bdUtT^:^^^^^^ her to sit in Palika. Meanwhile, Preeti"camec0u|vO.fc©nflame office and took her upstairs and started talking to another lady about making her a member. After that she brought her outside the office. One person namely,Naresh Dahiyacame and startedtalkingto Preeti. Preetitold her that she will come within 10-15 minutes and asked her not to go anywhere. She tiied to talk to Preeti on telephone several times but the call was on waiting for more than 10 minutes. Naresh Dahiya told her that Preeti had gone from back door and asked her to accompany him. CrLRev.Pet. 601/14 \ NareshDahiyatook her in his car to Priya Guest House, DaryaGanj, Delhiwhere he committedrape upon her. Thereafter,she came out of the guest house in anger. She and NareshDahiyaate golgappanear SablokClinic. She infomed Preeti that because of her, wrong thing had happened with her. Preeti came and inforaied the police. Ambulancecame and took her to JPN Hospital. She prayed for action againstNareshDahiya. Duringthe courseofher depositionbeforethe Court, she stated that she also want action to be taken againstPreeti and Dava Nand Khatii'via^'theyt.werehand'^m.-glovewith accused NareshDahiya. Thereupotfvide impugnedbirdefxdate.d8 July, 2014, Preeti and Da¥a Kh^rMwfere^S&Hieredto=>>fe summoned as "-If ' •)- 'iVi. accused. /

¶3Learned counsel for tl;ie appellmt has challenged the i': j)' summoningOrder on the grQipiE^haM^itherin her mitiaFstatement v\ |?/\ ... /J madebeforetile police^MA^tedli^^^^is'lSaiaonofFIRnor in her subsequentstat^efets^s,''t41Cr.P.C. or l^^O^prrecorded by the MetropolitanMagilfe^>^jl^^feufe^ any allegations againstthe petitioner. It w^-f^&ilS&rst#^^ in her examination-in-chief before the Court, she merely stated that the petitioner was hand ingloveswithNareshDahiyaand prayedfor actionagainsther.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence/documents available on record do not constitute commission of any offence much less prima facie evidence against the petitioner which warrants summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Counsel CrLRev.Pet. 601/14 \"\ further submits that even the cross-examinationof the prosecutrix was not recorded,therefore,therewas no occasionfor invokingthe powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Rehance in this regard is placed on Mohd. Shaft vs. Mohd. Rafiq, AIR 2007 SC 1899.

¶5By placingrelianceon AnilSinghandAnr. vs. StateofBihar, Crl. Appeal No. 1082/2006; Hardeep Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors,MANU/SC/0025/2014;PrabhdayalSingh vs. State ofPunjab &Ors., Crl.A.3;8487f012t;j^^^ Yadav and Anr. vs. State ofBiharand;dr^^0pMdi^^l^, it'was submittedthat Standardof proof'employedforr.slimiiomng a person'as accusedu/s 319 Cr.P.C.i^hig%rthan tfi^^^^|i|froof eniplo|ed^rframing a charge against m accused. is required to bHarrived at before passing a surnmoning^#(|iegftlkt the evidence adduced on ij I behalfof prosecution,if nol^llfeftte^^j^aylead to convittionof a personsoughtXtobe addeli-pMh^iccu^ed^inthe^cjase. In the in instant case, absolutely'%i6\%puM,,hasbeen given^'by:^^]!^'leairiedSessions '-•h 'V,, ' Judgefor sunimonidgj^ffiei^^tt^^js^fw^'s^jrffactcited as awitness by the prosecution, as siTchfisSfe^^iiipughe'dorder summoning the petitioner and subsequentframingof charge are liable to be set aside.

¶6Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference, as such, the revisions are liable to be dismissed. CrLRev.Pet.601/14

¶7I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissionsof the learned counsel for the parties and have pemsed the record.

¶8Section 319 Cr.P.C.as it existstoday, is quoted hereunder; "319 Cr.P.C. -Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appearsfrom the evidence that miy person not being the accusedhas committedany offenceJpr'whihh'TuflTper^on^^cpuld be triedtogetherwith the accused, the cdciiimqy^Pj;S,c^ed'agf^^^ the offence which he appearstoiha^'etcommitted.

(2) Where''such'/p^rsonis^^not:;afff0^jhgr0^ arrestedor . summon^fd, fnr th^ aforesaid. oned, a^fhe circuimp0^iMl^^^ may requit(e,.fqrthe purpose "if'C ifflmSiliM t\ ;7 -tf 'fi

(3) An^personattendingt/7^ |Jp.urt;bltjioughnot underarrestor upon a summojis,may be detainedlt^^^i^Qburtfor the purposeofjtheinquiry into,or'trialof the offence0$^he^^gearsto havecommitted.

(4) WherehtheCdui^pi^^^i^mri^i^yi^f^ iub-section(1), then-

(a) the proceidif^m'r^ect^gfj^^ shvibBe:.6bmmencedafresh, andthewitnessis-:re^heafS;^^rp;rvosii 5. "

(b) subjectto the provisim^^Glause-fdji^f^ may proceedas ifsuch person had been an accused peri^oWwhen the Court took cognizanceof the offence upon which the inquiryor trial was commenced."

¶9Section 319 Cr.P.C. springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitiir (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not amy one of CrLRev.Pet. 601/14 5^ the real culpritsas an accused,the courtis not powerlessin callingthe said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstancesand at what stage shouldthe court exerciseits poweras contemplatedin Section319 Cr.P.C.?

¶10There were divergent views having been expressed by the Supreme Court and several High Courts of the countiyon the scope and extent of the powers of the courts under the criminal justice system to aiTaign any persorts; an^a^^^ the course of inquiry or trial as Hihcier •Sefgf«5n^3-19._ofthe Code of Criminal Procedlire^-il'973(heEeinafelUrefen-ed"^^^^^^^^^^ ^Cr.P.C.'). Therefore,re|p^G&''wasrna|^^|^^|^i?itutionBe^ph^inHardeep Singh (suprafii. The doubts a§Seg;^0in paragraphsTS^and 78 of |-i H the reference,order led to the framing!oYifollowingtwo questions Hfll ifVS, "(1) Wh'en the power undeip^h^eiQ0M:^l)ofSection319 ofjthe Code of additioii^pfaccused^can Whethfr application underSection319'%'^ngty^^iht'mtldhi^^^ ofthe witness is cornp}eik?/-€'^ .

(2) Whatis the power under sub-section(1) of '

¶11After refening to various earlier decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as different High Courts, as regards the question whether the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Cr.P.C. means as arising in Examination-in-Chief or also together with Cross-Examination, it was held that once examination-in-chief is conducted, the statement becomes part of the record. It is evidence as per law and in the true sense, for at best, it may be rebuttable. An evidence being Crl..Rev.Pet.601/14 V rebutted or controverted becomes a matter of consideration, relevance and belief, which is the stage of judgment by the court. Yet it is evidence and it is material on the basis whereof the court can come to aprimafacie opinionas to complicityof some otherpersonwho may be connected with the offence. Therefore, even on the basis of Examination-in-Chief, the Court or the Magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the court is satisfiedthat the evidenceappearing against such person is such that it primafacie necessitatesbringing such person to face triak'ln factr^Exaniinafion-in untested by Cross Examinationfundbubtediyin. itself;'lC'Weyidence. While so /y tsiiv observing, the/^o]^ had;?tal^feiil|,'|i?0nsidef^io^ '^he decision renderedin Mohd^hafiv. •^nr., aA^20^.7SC 1899 on which reliance has been%M^%b|ilhe learned counsel for the ;; :i petitioner. Under the circums^n^Us-.^submissionthat ofnly on the •1, ^ /? basis of exdmnation-in-chi^'frlM^'V^tiXionercould not/•have been , V, , -6' sunimoned cannpt be?sustaMedv.ii^M:-,!-;;:.#H;'-' ,•/

¶12While dealin^^t^5|t^-7j|gf^^^'0j|^atil^^efion required for invoking the power under^S^cti^-xlrl^^^'P'.C.,it was observed as under:- "98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some ^ other person may also be guilty of committingthat offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led " before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. CrLRev.Pet. 601/14

¶99Thus, we hold that though only a primafacie case is to be established from the evidenceled beforethe courtnotnecessarilytestedon the anvil of Cross-Examination,it requires much stronger evidence than mere probabilityofhis complicity.The testthathasto beappliedis one v\/hich is more than primafacie caseas exercisedat the time offramingof charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, w/ouldlead to conviction.In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrainfrom exercisingpower under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any •offence' is clearfrom the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'^^Jheje-^Jherefore, no scope for the Court actingunderSectionJl&'CnP,C,,.tpfprm'm^^^^ as to the guiltofthe accused." cy"' ^ ,•

¶13It was ^ Cr.P.C.,the accusedsubsequetolly as ifjhe ftad been an accused wheh the"Court inititiM#Awl£#mzance of the oifence, the ii degree of satisfactionthat willKeif^equfredfor summoninga person i under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as for framirtg a charge. H // The differencainthe.de^ee^s^4sTaclip&fQr'kiJnmoning''the original accused and a subsdqSenf'accused is on ac6'6unt!'of the fact that the trialmay have aheaSy^fpi^^^lp^ag^sf^e''^•gihalaccusedand it is in the course of such trial^hat-materiSi^'"are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial. Therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different.

¶14As regards the question whether power under Section Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not chargesheeted or who have been discharged, it was obseived CrLRev.Pet. 601/14 that a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concernedthe requirementof Sections 300 and 398 Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.

¶15Again while.^eahngn^ith^'thepower? qf'iEhe Court u/s 319 .v pSi'l'-vA 'C ^ Cr.P.C.,in Anil/Sin§/i^(supi-a^'^\W^ thaithe^^urisdictionof j|;heCourtto is^^ue^^ocesses^^i^l^^^l^iEfwho has-^^tbeen sentup for trial is i#t Hfeputed. Pr^|^^^^^lsobe issued againstsuch persons who',although were namfedfihltMefirst information;report but Ij were not sent up for trial upoibfa^vestigM The jurisdictionof the 1/ Court undispiitedlyisrlliMite^U^^ile.itifeaiie^i'cise an extraordinary power, it is reqM^dfeovjQe'^i.dpnecautiously.while issuing the processes sho&d'.--arriv$!>7a:iV'xeasonaBle-'-satisfaction that the prosecutionwould be abi'^^^^prom.iiie'-'cfiargesagainst whom the processes are sought to be issued. Reference was made to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi V5. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors., 1983(1) see 1 where the law in this regard was laid down in following terms:- "But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. CrLRev.Pet.601/14 Page 9 of 15.

¶16Reliance was also placed on Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Am., 2000 Cri LJ 1706, where the Court opined: "11. The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquirythat some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence.Jriother words, the court must have that for suchSffejjce'-^ the alreadv/arr.atgified chi'offence'ithat other/>perspncould asjfl/ell be. tried along with ?arr^nedocc^^^

¶17Yet again1ft Krishnappa v State of Karnatakaf 20,04 Cri LJ I'l 'lA t ' u 4185, Court [observed: \ \r< <] 'If i'i jt i| ;i "9. In I^JchaelMachado v. C^pj^lj^pr^uofInvestigationcqijistruingthe words "the court may person" in Section 319 CrPC, this Court,held th^fhe ^'Q)^Ljs^^dls^;0ipnai%^^lf^shouldbe exercised only to ach1i^v^<^r^h0/justi6Mnd^at'th&i^ui^^hdM,'flbt turn against anotherper^^^il^J^vihit:$Qmesacigss-fvid'eMefcorinectingthatother person also with:?Jfre^,^^^^hisr^ff^^<^i%eF>ifeld that a judicial exerciseis calledfor,'k^pr^g^^ons^^jLof^ case, includingthestage at which the trial has already proceeded and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. The court, while examining an application under Section 319 CrPC, has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. In a nutshell, it means that for exercise of discretion under Section 319 CrPC, all relevant factors, including the one noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused." CrLRev.Pet. 601/14 V

¶18In Prabhdayal 5'w^/x(supra), after referring to various judgments,Punjab and Haryana High Court also took the view that poweru/s 319 Cr.P.C.shouldbe used onlywhen sufficientand cogent reasons are there to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincingone at least for the purpose of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.A very high standard is required to invoke jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and unless, a higher standard for the purpose of forming an,,0p1mon|Q--suirm as an additional accsued is laid extraordinary caseand also spara^^'^^is^^jurisiiGtionvwould notbe ^kisfied. Otherwisealso, sumMth^glot'anadditionaldccused is a serious matter. li I; ' '.!< 'i r? !'•. '' •7)1. H-h'4

¶19Recently in Jogendra following Hardeep Singh (supra), it was:held thafoxQWrSln^axyV^ of^/lhe Code of Criminal Proceaurd^^pan>,.be::,exercisedonly,4f''ye?^^;;str0ngand cogent evidence occurs asaM'stf,-a%^^s0h~j&ojii-|hei.eV^^^ led before the Court.

¶20Testing on the anvil of the aforesaid legal proposition, it is to be seen whether there was strong and cogent evidence against the petitioner for invoking the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. In her initial complaint made by the prosecutrix on 26^'' November, 2009, she leveled allegation of commission of rape by one Naresh Dahiya at Priya Guest House, Daryaganj, Delhi. In this complaint, it was stated CrL.Rev.Pet. 601/14 that the petitionerwho was workingwith OriflameOffice,Cannaught Place met her and told her that she was coming within 10-15 minutes but she did not return, thereuponNaresh Dahiya told her that Preeti has asked her to accompanyhim and thereuponshe went with him where she was subjected to rape. The prosecutrix informed the petitionerontelephoneabout the commissionof illegalact by Naresh Dahiya whereuponthe petitionerreached the spot and infonnedthe police. Ambulancecame and tookthe prosecutrixto hospital. 21, On the "conducted at LNJP hospital, New Delhi;|^^.She>yasi;fef^3;ed'x^^^g^e|c);lpgistfor further % \r ^ ^valuationan#mm&emen¥i|M // by .tM% ^necologist. As per the report"of doctor,tthe|pWen^{QSvaschanging heF;statement continuouslyi It was stated thHti'.thbbpMienthas come out of home to I' / lii h j! meet her all'eged aunt Mrs. J^refeEworMng in Oriflame,.Connaught \i t('/ Place where she met wiffi^twoim^-pe'rSons abMfrJ.Syears'of age who took herfirstto the%jesi^OTe,eat SafdarjungEncl|ye;wh,e^hegaveher colddrinkto drinklftef=w|irehtfh|-p^ti^^^^ dizzinessand she was taken to DaryagMjj^awKeife--'she''^^ sexually assaulted. According to the patient, the names of the persons were Naresh Dahiya and Chetan.

¶22On 27"^ November,2009, the statementof the prosecutrixwas recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. wherein similar allegations were narrated as in the FIR. - > CrLRev.Pet. 601/14 X

¶23Onthe same day, herstatementii/s 164 Cr.P.C.was recordedby learnedMetropolitanMagistratewhereinshe statedthat the petitioner had onlytold the prosecutrixto bringthe file and not to talkto Naresh Dahiya on the way. In this statement,the prosecutixwanted legal action only against Naresh Dahiya.

¶24Learned counsel for the petitioner refeiTedto the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of one Manjeet Singh @ Bablu to show that the prosecutrixwas involved,in_-ffost|p^iofl^^ Referencewas also made to the orderp^le^-«b0li'e^(So\iftof-S^lio^f^Wlegrantingbail to Naresh Dahi^y; w - been taking regardingofience?It was also^b||p|dphatin

26.11.2009,the prosecutrixnclivli6re|Mted that she accornpanied accusedon aiiy directiongive^J|^>m^|||l^tionerto the effettthat the prosexutrixWas to cdll^fet prosecutrixwas asked by accuse'^,!^^sfr^%hiya to represMt;h#^^^^^^ be Rita and wife ofaccused,there.^as^0^]30ifem^ to do so and not to enterinto the guestT^tse^^SllShWafftedto enterinto the guest house. Even after commission of alleged heinous crime, the prosecutrixhad golgappa with the accusednear Sablok Clinic instead of raising any hue and cry. In the Medical Report, there was no injury available on any part of the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that after completion of investigation, the police filed report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. The investigation revealed allegation against Naresh Dahiya only. The petitioner was cited as prosecution witness and was placed .r i-r"- '• her "stateinent dated »--Mhe CiLRev.Pet. 601/14 VI V at SI. No. 2. Prosecutrixwas examinedon 1?"' April, 2014 and 8"^ July, 2014. In her depositiondated 17"^ April, 2014, she stated that she was inti'oduced to accused Naresh Dahiya by the petitioner, however, when the accused was shown to her she stated that she was not sure if he is the same man or not. She further deposed that it was Khatri uncle who asked her to go with Naresh Dahiya and bring the file. In her deposition, she further stated that Naresh threatened her severaltimes afterregistrationof^the case and becauseof this reason, she shifted to NOIDA. ^AftHat time,'^shestaledf:'-'/ also want action to " ci/Sr-be taken against ^/eetKartd;Dava".I)lgndKhatri"fs %_ey are hand in gloveswith acctised^aresh" Merelyj'oMii.ebasis-of'this^statementof .•the prosecurtix,^fc|he petitiojnei •^a||;c|fdered to°,?^e •summoned. M ^ V;. However, as'seen above, as eibseived by Hon'ble Supreme Court in j;. -flp)!]/ :: Hardeep.SY^/i(supra),poweri^j|3'jl^Er.P.C. is adiscretipnaryand extraordinary\powerwhich^'l^^e'^p^jsedsparingly#id only in those cases where theMi"eufflstanees^^^^^ cas'©-'Sb-\warrant.It is only where strong andkcdgSiife.evidejticeocc|jrs'^gaiilftvf^./P®rsonfrom the evidenceledbeforethSCoui^;W^^^ be exercisedand not in casual and cavalier rnaiihe'r.""Except for the fact that the prosecutrix stated that she wanted action againstPreeti and Daya Nand Khatri as they were hand in gloves with accused Naresh, there was no other clinching and cogent evidence against the petitioner which ^ waiTanted summoning the petitioner. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the puipose of providing "if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused had committed any offence is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the Crl.Rev.Pet. 601/14 accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". Under the circumstances, there was no sufficient ground for summoning the petitioner who was kept as a witness in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

¶25That being so, the impugned or4ers cannot be sustained and both the revision petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated g1h July, 2014 and 13th October; 2014 are set aside. (UN1TA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 04, 2O1 rs CrL.Rev.Pet.601/14

V- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 656/2014 PJIEETI SEL\RMA Through DateofDecision:4"" May,2016 Petitioner Mr.Krishan Kumar and Ms. Vidushi, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent .''TKrough|^^,'^Mr.^iBrok.^K. Garg, APP along . rt M I a fi'wilh,j'Sub Inspector Ajay Singh, % CORAM. // HON'BLEINfS. Jj^STICESUNITAGUPJA •• X l^|f'g]^oliceStatioh-DaityaGanj c > -'.v; '• r oRDiiRiMaiy : SUNITAGtJPTA.J. Ifl J I • 3Ari_j % % ft For detliledorder,'pi.f6d^Tl'Rev.'I^.6OJ#2i0!d4. / . \ ' ' s'Ss../ % "J ^ <)' ^ >. 'A <9.-* •- MAY 04, 2016 rs Crl.Rev.Pet601/14 (SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofDecision:4"'May,2016 + CRL.REV.P. 601/2014 PREETI SHARMA Petitioner Through Mr.Krishan Kumar and Ms. Vidushi, Advocates versus STATE Respondent ,,rJr-hfSughs-;:Mr."Asfi"ok.^K. Garg, APP along '"witik^SSb Inspector Ajay Singh, // •Police StatioiiiD&yaGanj V: + CRL.ReV;^56/2014 . ' 'I, PREETISI^ARMA » f •Petitioner "if Through Mi'.Krishan Kumar I'.and Ms. ,jVidushi,Advocates ,.1^ ( " ,1 J, a \\ .'ir STATE ^ ",;;5:?;^;:;jafespondent APP along Ajay Singh, "'""'-Tofice StationDarya Ganj % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA