CRL.M.C./4886/2015 of TAJ MOHAMMAD Vs STATE ( GNCTD)
Parties
- This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of thedecisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan (PETITIONER)
- There are no special circumstances made out in the case at handfor the revisional court’s view to be disturbed (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 5 detected)
Statutes cited (3)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4886/2015 & CRL.M.A. 17489/2015TAJ MOHAMMAD..... Petitioner
..... Petitioner
Through:Mohd. Aslam with Mr. PranavGautam, Advocates.versus
STATE (GNCTD)
..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for Statewith SI Shailendra Kumar Singh, P.S.Gokulpuri, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
O R R06.08.2018
On the report under Section 173 of Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) submitted on conclusion of investigationinto FIR No.210/2011 of Police Station Gokalpuri, the petitioner wassummoned as accused and upon consideration of the materialsubmitted with the charge-sheet, by order dated 07.05.2014 he wasput on trial, charges having been framed for offencespunishableunder Sections 186/353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Thepetitioner challenged the said order before the court of sessionsinvoking its revisional jurisdiction (Crl. Revision no.05/2014) which,however, was dismissed by order dated 15.09.2015.
The present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of thisCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questions the said orders of the twocourts below.
CRL.M.C. 4886/2015Page 1 of 2
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 application filed therewith are dismissed.
AUGUST 06, 2018srb
R.K.GAUBA, J
CRL.M.C. 4886/2015
Page 2 of 2