CRL.M.C./3573/2024 of GAUTAM KUMAR Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C.3573/2024,CRL.M.A.13721/2024&CRL.M.A.29936/202429936/2024

GAUTAM KUMAR.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Namit Saxena and Mr. AwnishMaithani, Advs.Maithani, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS......Respondents

Through:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with S.I.Swati, P.S. Saket, New Delhi.Swati, P.S. Saket, New Delhi.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJANO R R22.01.2025

1.The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated15.04.2024 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, SouthDistrict, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned judge has set asidethe order of the learned ACMM whereby the cognizance was taken and thematter was remanded with the following observations contained in para 16the order, which reads as under:

“16. The matter is remanded back to the learned ACMM, South,Saket, with directions to pass detailed order regarding taking ofcognizance against the revisionists / accused persons signifyingillustrations for the offences of which the cognizance has beentaken, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits thatthe learned Principal District & Sessions Judge while remanding the matterhas directed the future course of action to be followed by the learnedMetropolitan Magistrate inasmuch as it has been directed that the learned

ACMM will pass detailed order regarding taking of cognizance against therevisionist/accused persons signifying illustrations for the offences of whichthe cognizance has been taken, after considering the facts and circumstancesof the case.

3.He submits that in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537,three courses are open to the Magistrate after the chargesheet is filed i.e. hecan accept the chargesheet, he can reject the chargesheet or he may orderfurther investigation.

4.He submits that the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge oughtnot to have directed on the future course of action to be followed by thelearned ACMM while reconsidering the matter after remand.

5.The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, as well as, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent no.2submit that they have no objection in case the impugned order passed by thelearned Principal District & Sessions Judge is clarified.

6.In view of the above, it is directed that the learned ACMM will pass adetailed order on the aspect of cognizance in terms of the law laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) uninfluenced by theobservations made in para 16 of the impugned order.

7.With the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed of.

JANUARY 22, 2025/aj

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J