Delhi High Court
Gaurav Gupta vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 30 August, 2018
$~13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 30th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3592/2016
GAURAV GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv. for R-3 to 7
9 & 13.
Mr. Debopriyo Moulik & Mr. Aditya
Wadhwa, Advs. for R-8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had moved the court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate by petition dated 11.09.2015 (CC No. 113/1) styled as
application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the private party respondents herein alleging
that they had committed offences punishable under Sections
307/341/116/117/119/506/149 read with Section 120 B of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the prayer made by him being for a direction
to the concerned station house officer of police station to register an
FIR and for cognizance to be taken on the said offences besides for
recording of the statement of the complainant and for process to be
issued.
2. Having regard to the prayer made in the said application, the
request was for direction to the police to investigate and, in the
alternative, for the magistrate to take cognizance and hold the
preliminary inquiry under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. The Metropolitan
Magistrate, by order dated 23.04.2016, declined to issue any direction
to the police for investigation and thus, dismissed the prayer under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. He opted instead to take cognizance by
calling upon the complainant to adduce evidence in pre-summoning
inquiry and fixed the matter for such purpose.
3. The petitioner challenged the said order before the court of
Sessions in criminal revision no. 70/2016. His revision, however, was
dismissed by order dated 14.07.2016.
4. The present petition was filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to bring a challenge to the said two consistent
orders of the two courts below.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
8. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 30, 2018
nk
