- (1.)These three Petitions arise out of the FIR No.123/2012 wherein on filing of the charge sheet by an order dated 01.09.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ("MM?) took cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons including Rajinder Dagar and Padam Singh Dagar and ordered issuance of the process against the earlier said two persons. (Petitioners in Crl.M.C.161/2013 and 428/2013).
(2.)Order dated 01.09.2012 was successfully challenged by these two Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.410/2012 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi who relying on Kishun Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1993 CrLJ 1700 opined that in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, "MM" was not competent to take cognizance and it was only the Sessions Court which can take cognizance under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) after the case is committed to it by the learned "MM?. The learned ASJ held that the dictum in Kishun Singh had been approved by the Supreme Court in its later judgments in Dharampal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2004 13 SCC 9; and Jaswant & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 8 Scale 275. Thus, the learned ASJ set aside the order taking cognizance against Rajinder Singh and Padam Singh Dagar and consequently issuing process against them.
(3.)There is another twist to the case, in as much as, when the case was committed to the Court of Session, the learned ASJ by an order dated 05.01.2013 took cognizance under Section 193 of the Code against the earlier said two Petitioners and held that the Sessions Court need not wait for the stage of Section 319 of the Code. Consequently order dated 21.09.2012 came to be passed by the learned ASJ was set at naught and the order dated 01.09.2012 passed by the learned "MM? stood revived.