Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Singh vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 28 August, 2018
$~38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 28th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 62/2018
NARENDER KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kinger, Mr. Sanjay
Verma, Mr. Jitender Kumar and Ms. Roopa
Nagpal, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with SI Lavkesh Kumar, PS Preet Vihar
Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Adv. for the R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing prosecution in the criminal case
registered on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) presented on conclusion of
investigation into first information report (FIR) no.221/2008 of police
station Preet Vihar. After compliance with the provision of Section
207 Cr. PC, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM)
considered the question of charge. By order dated 24.01.2017, she
found no grounds to put the petitioner on trial on the charge for
offences under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) or
Section 65 of Information Technology Act, 2000. She, however,
found grounds for charge to be framed under Section 67 of
Information Technology Act, 2000, the gravamen whereof as revealed
by the formal charge framed on 24.07.2017 being that on certain
specified dates, he had transmitted, published or sent several obscene
or lascivious e-mails to the complainant by using his office computer
and personal e-mail which was delivered to the complainant on her
personal e-mail.
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had challenged the above-said
order of the ACMM before the court of Sessions by Criminal Revision
no.247/2017. The petition was dismissed by the revisional court by
order dated 02.11.2017. The petition at hand was filed invoking
Section 482 Cr. PC to bring yet another challenge to the said
consistent orders of the two courts below.
3. 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.
4. 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 out 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 its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
5. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
6. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 28, 2018
yg
