CRL.M.C./2589/2015 of M/S BLUESTAR INFOTECH PVT LTD. Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2589/2015 and Crl. M.A. 29596-29597/2018

M/S BLUESTAR INFOTECH PVT LTD...... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Kavita and Shefali, Advocates

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... RespondentsThrough: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for theStateMr. Manjit Singh and Mr. Jaspreet Singh,Advocate for R-2 & 3

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBAO R R%08.08.2018

The petitioner had filed criminal complaint (CC 247/2013)alleging offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471,120B, 34 IPC by the private party respondents. Alongwith the saidcomplaint, it had also filed an application seeking direction to thepolice to investigate in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC). The Metropolitan Magistrate byorder dated 20.03.2014 declined to issue such directions and insteadopted to take cognizance calling upon the petitioner (complainant) tolead pre-summoning evidence. The said order was challenged beforethe court of Sessions by criminal revision petition no.15/14, whichwas dismissed by order dated 02.06.2014 thereby affirming the viewtaken by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.CRL.M.C. 2589/2015page 1 of 2

The said orders are challenged by the petition at hand invokingSection 482 of the Cr. PC.

Against the above backdrop, question arose as to whether thepetitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowedto have recourse to the petition at hand as substitute for virtually asecond revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred underSection 397 (3) Cr.P.C.

This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of thedecisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni,(1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522and Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation &Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571 andfollowing similar view taken by alearned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State &Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of special case being made hasearlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) inCrl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482Cr.P.C.

There are no special circumstances made out in the case at handfor the revisional court’s view to be disturbed.

The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.Dasti.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

AUGUST 08, 2018ygCRL.M.C. 2589/2015

page 2 of 2