Delhi High Court
Col. Harendraa Pal Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 July, 2018
$~19 & 20 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2018
+ CRL.MC. 5021/2015 & CRL.M.A.18115/2015
COL. HARENDRAA PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate with
Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
with SI Varun, PS Hauz Khas.
+ CRL.MC. 916/2016 & CRL.M.A.3817/2016
MADHURI KAPOOR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate with
Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
with SI Varun, PS Hauz Khas.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the complaint of Anjali Kapur Gonsalves, FIR
No.57/2012 had been registered by Police Station Hauz Khas, and
investigation taken up for offences allegedly committed under
Sections 420/406/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On
completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was submitted before the Metropolitan Magistrate against both the
petitioners, who were summoned as accused. The Metropolitan
Magistrate thereafter considered the question of charges to be
framed on the available material. He found, by order dated
14.10.2014, charge made out for putting the petitioner of the first
captioned matter on trial for offences punishable under Section 120-
B read with Section 409/420/417 IPC and petitioner of the second
captioned petition for offence under Section 409/420/417/120-B
IPC.
2. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, approached the court of
Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by a joint criminal
revision petition No.31/2015. The said petition was found to be
devoid of merit and dismissed by the court of Sessions by a very
detailed and reasoned order passed on 10.09.2015.
3. The present petitions were filed invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) with the prayer for the said orders and the
criminal case to be quashed.
4. Against the above backdrop, question arose as to whether the
petitioners 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.
5. 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.
6. There are no special circumstances made out in the cases at
hand for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
7. Both the petitions and the pending applications stand disposed
of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 17, 2018
vk
