Delhi High Court
Rumal Bharti vs State & Ors. on 7 August, 2018
$~16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 7th August, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 3923/2015
RUMAL BHARTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais & Mr. Pranav
Jain, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for
the State.
Mr. Vimal Puggal, Adv. for R-
4, 5 & 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had approached the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate by application (CC No. 996/4/2015) seeking direction for
investigation by the police into the allegations made by him against
the private party respondents, they, in his submission, making out a
case involving offences punishable under Sections 120B, 415, 420,
425, 447, 448, 454, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC). The Metropolitan Magistrate, by her order dated
14.05.2015, was of the view that the averments in the said application
primarily revealed civil dispute, it being subject matter of a pending
civil litigation. As regards the allegations of forgery and fabrication of
certain documents, for claiming ownership of the subject property, in
which the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession on the
strength of certain documents, and an attempt for his forcible
dispossession, the Magistrate observed that the identity of the accused
persons was known and relevant material was available with the
petitioner. She thus, declined to grant any direction to the police under
Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and
instead gave liberty to the petitioner to lead pre-summoning evidence,
presumably under Section 200 Cr.P.C., fixing the case for such
purposes for a later date.
2. The petitioner questioned the aforementioned order of the
Metropolitan Magistrate before the Court of Sessions by petition (C.R.
32/2015) invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The District & Sessions
Judge (West), by her order dated 05.08.2015, found no merit in the
revision petition and endorsed the view taken by the Metropolitan
Magistrate observing that it did not suffer from any jurisdictional or
legal error.
3. The present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to assail the above-
mentioned orders of the two courts below.
4. Against the above backdrop, question arose as to whether the
petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed
to have recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a
second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under
Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.
5. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the
decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni,
(1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and
Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr.,
(2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view taken by a learned
single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr.,
ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of a special case being made has
earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in
Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
6. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
7. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 07, 2018
nk
