Harshit Gori vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2018 Latest Caselaw 3829 Del

$~28
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                            Decided on : 10th July, 2018

+       CRL.M.C. 4227/2015 and Crl. M.A. 15133/2015

        HARSHIT GORI                                ..... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. Rohit Taneja, Advocate

                             versus

        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.        ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
                      State
                      Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

                         ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 03.06.2014 alleging that he had been subjected to assault and illegal confinement as a result of which he had suffered injuries, his money also having been forcibly taken away with dishonest intention by the persons named in the said complaint, no action having been taken on the complaint earlier lodged with the police station Janak Puri on 02.06.2014. He made a prayer for a direction to the police for registration of the first information report and investigation. The Metropolitan Magistrate declined the prayer for such direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) and instead, by order

dated 28.01.2015, took cognizance and decided to hold an inquiry under Section 200 Cr. PC fixing the case for further process in that regard.

2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved challenged the said order before the court of the Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by criminal revision 10/2015 which was dismissed by judgment dated 24.08.2015. It is the said order which is under challenge by the petition at hand invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC.

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 for 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 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.

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 and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 10, 2018 yg