J.P.Singh & Anr. vs Vinay Kanodia
2010 Latest Caselaw 5342 Del

               * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Reserve: 28th October, 2010
                                                Date of Order: 24th November, 2010
+ Crl. M.C. No. 4232/2009
%                                                                      24.11.2010

G.SHIRIL SAROJ &ORS.                               ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate &
                   Mr. Shrish Aggarwal, Advocate

                            versus

VINAY KANODIA                                                     ..... Respondent
                                      Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr. Abhas Mishra,
                                      Mr. Shubhankar Jha & Mr. Tarun Chawla,
                                      Advs.
AND

+CRL.M.C. 4308/2009


JP SINGH & ANR.                                                  ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate &
                            Mr. Shrish Aggarwal, Advocate

                            versus

VINAY KANODIA                                               ..... Respondent
                            Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr. Abhas Mishra,
                            Mr. Shubhankar Jha & Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advs.


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?




Crl. M.C. No. 4232 of 2009 & 4308 of 2009                                 Page 1 of 4
 ORDER

1. Arguments have been addressed whether the Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate who entertained the complaint of the

respondent had jurisdiction to do so or not.

2. Section 17 of Cr. P.C. pertains to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in metropolitan cities and

reads as under:

"(1) The High Court shall, in relation to every metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction, appoint a Metropolitan Magistrate to be the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for such metropolitan area.

(2) The High Court may appoint any Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under this Code or under any other law for the time being in force as the High Court may direct."

Section 19 of Cr. P.C. describes about subordination of Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

and reads as under:

"(1) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge, and every other Metropolitan Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2) The High Court may, for the purposes of this Code, define the extent of the subordination if any, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Metropolitan Magistrates and as to the allocation of business to an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate."

3. In Delhi there are 9 districts. However, Delhi has only one Sessions Division. Therefore, only one Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is appointed in Delhi and in all other districts Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is head of Magistracy in terms of Cr. P.C. All criminal complaints in each district are filed before concerned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and he has to assign these criminal complaints to different Metropolitan Magistrates in accordance with rules of allocation of business as indicated by High Court. However, Section 19 (3) of Cr. P.C. gives power to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to allocate business to Metropolitan Magistrates. The post of Chief Metropolitan Magistrates is akin to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate as described in Section 12 of Cr. P.C.

4. I consider that an Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on being presented with a complaint, has discretion either to keep the complaint with himself or to mark it to other Metropolitan Magistrate working in the district.

5. In the present case, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of district New Delhi kept this complaint with himself instead of marking it to other Metropolitan Magistrate. I consider he committed no illegality

in entertaining the complaint. The issue of jurisdiction is, therefore, decided accordingly.

6. List for arguments in the petition on 21st February, 2011.

NOVEMBER 24, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

acm