Delhi High Court
Omwati & Anr. vs Ranbir Singh & Ors. on 24 April, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* 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.
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
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
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
