CRL.M.C./4043/2018 of RAM NATH CHAWLA @ RAMAN NATH CHAWLA Vs STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 4043/2018 and Crl. M.A. 29765/2018

RAM NATH CHAWLA @ RAMAN NATH CHAWLA .... PetitionerThrough: Mr. Nitesh Mehra and Ms. HitakshiMehra, AdvocatesThrough: Mr. Nitesh Mehra and Ms. HitakshiMehra, Advocates

versus

STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBAO R R%10.08.2018

Onthecriminalcomplaint(CCno.24493/2016)ofthepetitioner, the Metropolitan Magistrate had called for action takenreport from the SHO of police station Patel Nagar vis-a-vis thecomplaint that had been earlier lodged with the police to consider therequest for direction for investigation under Section 156(3) of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC). Upon considering thereport, the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 29.06.2017declined to issue directions, inter alia, observing that the facts andcircumstances as also the identity of the perpetrators of the allegedcrimes involving offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 415,420, 506, 34 IPC were known to the complainant and he had in hispossession all the necessary material / evidence to substantiate theCRL.M.C. 4043/2018page 1 of 3

same. The Metropolitan Magistrate instead opted to take cognizanceand called upon the petitioner (complainant) to adduce evidence inpre-summoning inquiry presumably under Section 200 Cr.PC.

The petitioner challenged the said order before the court ofsessions by criminal revision petition no.270/2017. The petition wasdismissed by the said court on 06.07.2018.

The petitioner has come up to this court invoking the inherentpower under Section 482 Cr. PC to challenge the orders of the courtbelow.

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.

CRL.M.C. 4043/2018page 2 of 3

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

The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.

AUGUST 10, 2018

R.K.GAUBA, J

CRL.M.C. 4043/2018page 3 of 3