* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 680/2012
Date of Decision : 24.04.2012
OMWATI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jay Kishore Singh, Adv.
versus
RANBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by Shri Rajeev Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the criminal revision petition No.2/2010, upholding the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by Shri Ravinder Singh, learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No.1817/2001.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record.
Crl.M.C. No.680/2012 Page 1 of 4
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the respondent, alleging therein that on 4.1.2009, at about 7:15 P.M., petitioner nos.1 and 2, along with two other co-accused persons, attacked the respondent and her daughter, namely, Ashima, aged 19 years, as a consequence of which both of them received injuries and they were medically examined at AIIMS. They were also threatened of dire consequences allegedly by the present petitioners.
4. The respondent, in support of its case, examined 5 witnesses at the pre-summoning stage and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments, summoned the present petitioners for an offence under Section 323/506/34 IPC, while as the other two co-accused persons were not summoned, as no sufficient evidence was found against them.
5. The present petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said summoning order, preferred a criminal revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The learned Court of Sessions dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner by passing a speaking and detailed order on 17.11.2011, holding that for the purpose of summoning, what is to be seen is prima facie Crl.M.C. No.680/2012 Page 2 of 4 suspicion against the petitioners; or in other words, there must be sufficient ground to proceed against them. Despite the revision petition having been rejected by the Court of Sessions, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. specifically lays down that if a party has preferred a revision to the Court of Sessions, then the second revision is barred.
7. The filing of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in my considered opinion, is a second revision filed by the petitioner, assailing the same order passed by the learned Magistrate which has been upheld by the Court of Sessions. This cannot be permitted to be done only by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C..
8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. confers very wide powers on the High Court which have to be exercised sparingly and only when there is a gross abuse of the processes of law or any specific order is required to be passed in the interest of justice.
9. In the instant case, I do not find there is any gross abuse of the processes of law or any order than the one which has been passed by the Court of Sessions is Crl.M.C. No.680/2012 Page 3 of 4 required to be passed in the interest of justice.
10. Accordingly, the petition filed by the present petition is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J APRIL 24, 2012 tp Crl.M.C. No.680/2012 Page 4 of 4