Deepak Khosla vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 565 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 31.01.2017
+      W.P.(C) 764/2017 & CM Nos.3515/2017 & 3516/2017

       DEEPAK KHOSLA                                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through:            Petitioner in person.

                          versus


       HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Vikram Pradeep, Advocate for
                              Mr. Viraj Datar, Advocate for
                              respondent No.1.
                                       Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC GNCTD
                                       along with Mr. Sudhindra Tripathi,
                                       Advocate       for     respondent
                                       No.5/GNCTD.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
                                   JUDGMENT

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

1. This writ petition is in effect directed against the action of the registry in allotting the number Crl.M.C. No.3801/2016 to an application filed by the respondent No. 6 and in listing the said application before the Learned Single Bench having determination to take up criminal revision matters.

2. On or about 26/02/2016, an article was published in the newspaper, Times of India, after which, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint for defamation in the appropriate criminal Court at Saket. Summons were issued to 13 persons arrayed as accused in the said criminal complaint including the respondent No.6 on or about 08/07/2016.

3. It is pleaded that on 8 September 2 016, the respondent No. 6 did not appear before the Trial Court on the purported ground that the respondent No. 6 had not been served with a hard copy of the summons, even though the respondent No. 6 had duly been served by email.

4. The respondent No. 6 filed a Criminal Revision Application in this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner at Saket. According to the petitioner, the criminal revision application was dated 5th October, 2016. However, the supporting affidavit was purportedly affirmed on 4 October 2 016. Moreover there was a discrepancy in the spelling of the name of the applicant in the criminal revision application, and in the affidavit purportedly affirmed on 04/10/2016.

5. Mr Deepak Khosla, the petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the criminal revision application was dated 05/10/2016. There was, therefore, no Criminal Revision Application on 04/10/2016, when

the purported supporting affidavit in verification of the application was purportedly affirmed by the respondents No. 6. A supporting affidavit purporting to verify the averments in the Criminal Revision application could not possibly have preceded the application.

6. Mr Khosla argued that there was no application when the affidavit of the respondent No. 6 was affirmed on 04/10/2016, and there was no affidavit affirmed on 05/10/2016. The application which was dated 05/10/2016, was, therefore, not supported by any affidavit verifying the averments in the application. Furthermore, the name of the applicant, who is the respondent No. 6 in this writ petition, was spelt 'Samir' in the application, but 'Sameer' in the purported affidavit purportedly affirmed on 04/10/2016.

7. Mr Khosla argued that, there being no affidavit verifying the Criminal Revision Application, there was no application in the eye of law. The Registry of this court ought not to have allotted a number to the application, nor listed the same before the concerned bench.

8. By an order dated 07/10/2016, the learned Single Bench directed that notices be issued to the respondents in the Criminal Revision Application, including the petitioner. In the meanwhile, liberty was

granted to the respondent No. 6, being the applicant in the Criminal Revision Application, to appear before the Trial Court at Saket.

9. Mr Khosla submitted that in the absence of an affidavit, verifying the Criminal Revision Application filed by the respondents No. 6, the criminal revision application could not have been entertained. The order dated 07/10/2016 was, therefore, without jurisdiction and null and void. Mr Khosla argued that the order dated 7th October 2016, being null and void, the same was of no effect, and could even be questioned by way of a declaratory suit in any Court, even a lower court.

10. Mr Khosla further submitted that even though there is ordinarily no intra court appeal in this High Court, against an order in a Criminal revisional, in this case the order dated 07/10/2016 adjudicates a civil lis. An intra court appeal would, therefore lie on the Civil Side of this Court.

11. The question before us is, whether this writ petition should be entertained, and, if so, before this Division Bench, which, as per the roster, might take up writ petitions relating to administrative orders passed by this High Court.

12. Firstly, there is no administrative order issued by any official of the registry. No such order has been enclosed. The writ petition is in effect against the ministerial act of the Registry in allotting a

number to the Criminal Revision Application of the Respondent No.6 and listing the same before the Roster Bench having determination to take up Criminal Revision applications.

13. In our view, the Criminal Revision Application having been listed before the Roster Bench, any objection with regard to the maintainability of the Criminal Revision application, whether on the ground of want of appropriate supporting affidavit, or otherwise, ought to have been taken before the Roster Bench. There is no reason why this High Court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition.

14. Even assuming that the order dated 07/10/2016 is a nullity, as contended by Mr Khosla, and can even be challenged by way of a suit, the order cannot be challenged before this Bench, which does not have determination to take up a suit. Nor does this Bench have determination in respect of criminal revision matters. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07/10/2016, his remedy possibly lies by way of a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This observation is not, however, to be construed as any finding of this Court, that there is any infirmity in the order dated 07/10/2016 of the Ld. Single Bench. An order in criminal revision application is not appealable or revisable before the Division Bench of this Court.

15. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is not entertained and the same is dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from initiating such proceedings and / or filing such appeal as may be maintainable in law against the order dated 07/10/2016.

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J January 31, 2017