Delhi High Court
Ajit Singh & Ors. vs Pushpa Rani on 31 July, 2018
$~14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 31st July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 2754/2016
AJIT SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Malhotra & Mr.
Ravinder Singh, Advs.
versus
PUSHPA RANI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.K. Singh, Ms. Madhulika
Agarwal & Mr. Harsh Pandit,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the criminal complaint of the respondent (CC No. 34/2006),
the petitioners were summoned to face trial for allegations constituting
offences punishable under Sections 406/452/323/504/506/147 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Since
the criminal complaint arose out of the private complaint case, pre-
charge evidence was adduced. Upon consideration of the said pre-
charge evidence, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated
11.12.2015, found sufficient grounds to frame charges for offences
under Sections 323/406/451/506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against
the petitioners. The magistrate, however, did not find any material to
put the petitioners on trial for offences under Sections 147/452/504
IPC. The said order was challenged by the first petitioner by petition
(CR no. 15/2016) and by second and third petitioners by a separate
petition (CR no. 16/2016) in the court of Sessions invoking its
revisional jurisdiction. Both the said petitions were decided by
common judgment dated 03.06.2016, the revisional court holding that
there was no merit in the contentions raised and thereby upholding the
order framing charge against the petitioners. The said order has been
challenged by the petition at hand invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.).
2. The petition is pressed by the counsel for the petitioners with
reference to another criminal case (ID no. 02402R0248372008) it
having been instituted by the State on the basis of charge-sheet that
was presented on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 127/2002
of police station Roop Nagar involving offences under Sections 498
A/323/34 IPC in which three persons including the first two
petitioners of the matter at hand were put on trial, the said case having
resulted in a judgment dated 23.12.2015 of the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate whereby they were acquitted of charges of offences
punishable under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC. Such judgment of
acquittal sought to be challenged by the complainant (i.e. respondent
herein) by Criminal Leave Petition 310/2016 is also listed before this
Court today.
3. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that no allegations
of criminal breach of trust were levelled by the State in case arising
out of FIR No. 127/2002 of police station Roop Nagar and, therefore,
the allegations made in the present case are not credible. This plea
cannot be accepted as the allegations made in the criminal complaint
from which the present proceedings arise relate to different set of facts
and circumstances, though involving almost similar set of parties, the
allegations about criminal breach of trust not being subject matter of
trial in the State case.
4. Against the above backdrop, question also 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.
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 case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
7. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 31, 2018/nk
