Delhi High Court
K S Mehra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 16 July, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3068/2015 and Crl. M.A. 10890/2015
K S MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais and Ms.
Sanya Sud, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP
Mr. Amit Khemka and Mr. Rishi Sehgal,
Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was a member of Indian Administrative
Service (IAS) while the second respondent was a member of Indian
Police Service (IPS), both having held high positions, each of them
having since demitted office on reaching the age of superannuation.
Both of them were married to each other, the marriage having since
been dissolved by a decree of divorce which was granted on
15.10.2007, such decree having been upheld in appeal by this court
on 24.11.2008.
2. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the
second and third respondents in May 2013 alleging offences
punishable under Sections 120 B, 388, 385 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by them.
3. It appears that earlier at the instance of the second
respondent, FIR no.108/2012 had been registered by police station
EOW against the petitioner which, the petitioner terms to be based
on false accusations.
4. In the complaint made before the Magistrate in May 2013,
the petitioner alleged that the third respondent, a practicing lawyer
projecting himself to be having connections with various high
ranking officials and political leaders had met the petitioner on
29.09.2012, the petitioner having agreed to such meeting at the
instance of the second respondent. He alleges that during the said
meeting, illegal demands of Rs.20,00,000/- which were reduced to
Rs.10,00,000/- were made for the petitioner to share revenue from
his ancestral properties, this being coupled with threats extended to
the effect that if demands were not exceeded to the third respondent
would use his position as a lawyer and the second petitioner would
use her clout with the Commissioner of Police, with whom she was
quite close, leading to the petitioner facing dire consequences. The
petitioner would rely on recording of the conversation between him
and the third respondent.
5. The aforementioned complaint was accompanied by an
application seeking a direction to the police for investigation under
Section 156(3) Cr. PC. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order
dated 05.03.2014, dismissed the said application, inter alia,
observing that the entire evidence was available and within the
reach of the petitioner. While dismissing the prayer under Section
156(3), the Magistrate took cognizance and listed the case for pre-
summoning enquiry under Section 200 Cr. PC.
6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, challenged the
aforementioned order in the court of the Sessions invoking its
revisional jurisdiction by petition (Crl. Revision No.34/2014). The
Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition by order dated
(03.06.2015) which is assailed by the petition at hand.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at
hand for the revisional court's view to be disturbed. It may be
added that when the case reaches the stage of Section 202 Cr. PC,
the petitioner will have the opportunity to again pray for direction
to the police for investigation into the aspects where he needs
assistance for the evidence to be gathered.
10. The petition and the application filed therewith are
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 16, 2018
yg
