Delhi High Court
Pankaj Sharma vs State & Ors. on 4 July, 2018
$~26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 4th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 3946/2015
PANKAJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Ranjan & Mr. Gaurav
Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for
the State with SI Avdesh, PS
Vijay Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2015 of the
Court of Sessions in criminal revision no. 25/2015 which had been
presented by him to question the correctness, legality and propriety of
the order dated 18.04.2015 of the Metropolitan Magistrate in
complaint case no. 405/01/2014. The said order dated 18.04.2015 had
been passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate declining the prayer of the
petitioner for direction to the police for registration of first information
report (FIR) on the basis of his application to that effect in the context
of the complaint that had earlier been made by him to the station
house officer of police station Vijay Vihar alleging, inter alia, that the
private respondents herein had committed offences punishable under
Sections 403/406/420/494/495/506/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC). The Metropolitan Magistrate treated the said petition
seeking direction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a criminal
complaint and decided to take cognizance thereupon calling upon the
petitioner, by the order dated 18.04.2015 to adduce "pre-summoning
evidence" which would be in the nature of inquiry under Sections
200/202 Cr.P.C. The Court of Sessions declined to interfere in the
said order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in his judicial
discretion and consequently dismissed the revision petition under
Section 397 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
primarily under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to pray for the aforesaid orders of the courts
below to be set aside.
3. It may be noted here that the prime allegations on the basis of
which the petitioner sought the criminal law to be set in motion are
that the private respondents had approached him and his family
proposing the marriage of the second respondent with him,
representing her as a spinster and a good match. He alleges that
believing the representations made respecting the second respondent,
the marriage was eventually solemnized on 14.04.2012. He attributes
certain acts of commission and omission on the part of the second
respondent and members of her family who are the other private party
respondents in the petition giving rise to certain matrimonial disputes.
It is his case that he had later come to know by certain documents
received through courier that the second respondent had earlier been
married to one Mr. Sundeep Bhai Dhanji Bhai Makwana. He would,
thus, allege that marriage ceremony undergone with him on
14.04.2012 was in the nature of bigamous relationship, the factum of
previous marriage having been concealed. He alleges cheating and
misappropriation of certain property belonging to him by the private
respondents and also certain acts having been committed amounting to
criminal intimidation, all such offences allegedly having been
committed pursuant to criminal conspiracy or by acts indulged in by
common intention.
4. The Metropolitan Magistrate declined to issue a direction to the
police for registration of the FIR, referring in this context to judgment
of this Court in M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2002
Crl.L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), and also noting that the application for such
direction had been moved in the wake of FIR No. 111/2014 having
been lodged by the second respondent at police station Gatholidia,
Gujrat alleging offences punishable under Sections
498A/323/294B/114 IPC. The Sessions Court, in its revisional
jurisdiction, found no illegality or impropriety in the said approach of
the Metropolitan Magistrate and, in that context, referred to another
ruling of this Court in Sh. Subhkaran Luharuka & Ors. vs. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. in Crl.M.C. 6122-23/2005 dated 09.07.2010.
5. Against the above backdrop, the 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 seek a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is
clearly barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.
6. This Court in 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 by order dated 03.07.2018 to interfere by the ruling 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. As rightly observed by
the courts below, the inquiry magistrate would have the necessary
jurisdiction to order probe by the police if a certain aspect requires
such investigation when the case reaches the stage of Section 202
Cr.P.C.
8. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 04, 2018
nk
