This post has already been read 166 times!
Even though, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has dismissed this M.Cr.C, it categorically held that,
Another issue raised by the knife in this case is that,
the respondent No.2 preferred the revision without impleading the applicant as party, therefore, the applicant could not get opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order passed behind the back of the applicant is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that presence of respondent No.2 is required during trial and in the event of end of trial into conviction it would be difficult to bring the respondent No.2 back to India from USA for serving out the sentence. In such circumstances, the order of granting permission to go to USA is not justified and, therefore, it be set aside.
And here is the slipper slap given by court to knife:
Dipika Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016
It was not required for the respondent No.2 to make the applicant as party to the revision, therefore, the objection of the applicant that opportunity of hearing was not given to her before the revisional Court has no merit.