Delhi High Court
Rattan Poddar vs State & Anr. on 19 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: May 19, 2015
+ Crl. M.C. No.5840/2014
RATTAN PODDAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Deepti Bhagat, Adv.
versus
STATE& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Satish Verma, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside of order dated 29th
September, 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition
No.44/2011 titled 'Rattan Poddar vs. Raj Kumar Saraf & Anr'.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of the
petitioner, FIR No. 463/2002 P.S.Nanad Nagri, Delhi under
Section 63/68A of Copyright Act was registered on the direction of
the court on 11th October, 2002. Charge-sheet was filed by the
investigating agency against all the accused persons arraying
respondent No.2 as accused No.4. Thereafter, respondent No.2
filed a petition for quashing of FIR before this Court wherein
respondent No.2 admitted that the case property belonged to the
respondent No.2. When the case was fixed for arguments on
charge before the trial court, this Court dismissed the quashing
petition filed by the respondent No.2 with liberty to argue on the
point of charge all the contentions raised before this Court by
order dated 2nd September, 2009.
3. By an earlier order dated 3rd July, 2007 Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate passed a detailed order holding that the
charges be framed against all the accused persons including the
respondent No.2. However, in view of the order passed by this
Court, respondent No.2 was again heard on the point of charge
before the trial court.
4. The trial court by order dated 4th December, 2010
discharged the respondent No.2 holding that respondent No.2 has
not been charge-sheeted by the investigating agency.
5. At the time of discharging the respondent No.2, the
petitioner was not present before the trial court as the complaint of
the petitioner had been registered as FIR and presence of
petitioner was not necessary before the trial court. The petitioner
came to know about the discharging of the respondent No.2 only
on 16th May, 2011 when the petitioner got the certified copy of the
order of discharge.
6. Against the order of discharge passed by the trial court,
petitioner filed Revision Petition before Sessions Court along with
the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation
of delay in filing of the revision petition. The petitioner had filed the
revision petition within the statutory period from the date of
knowledge of the order of discharge of respondent No.2 but also
filed the application for condonation of delay if the limitation was to
be considered from the date of order passed by the trial court. The
revision court issued notice to the respondent No.2 and also filed
reply to the revision petition and the application for condonation of
delay in filing of revision petition. By order dated 29th September,
2014 Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition as well as the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by the
said order, present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
7. Admittedly, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner
before the Session Court challenging the order of the Magistrate
passed on 4th December, 2010 in which the respondent No.2 was
discharged. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By order dated
29th September, 2014, the Revisional Court dismissed the
application on the ground of delay. It was observed in the order
that the same is barred by limitation.
8. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the
Revisional Court, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion to
interfere with the said order once the revision petition has been
dismissed. The present petition is dismissed.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2015
