Delhi High Court
Prateek Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 25 October, 2018
$~13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th October, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 2348/2016
PRATEEK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with ASI Tulli Ram, PS
Badarpur.
Mr. G.A. Khan, Adv. 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
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking criminal action
against the second to fourth respondents seeking direction to the police
for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). It appears from the pleadings that the
second respondent is his wife, they having been married on
10.12.2012, the marital relationship having gone into rough weather,
he, inter alia, alleging that the second respondent had been in an illicit
relationship with the third respondent prior to the marriage of the
parties. He made allegations of certain acts of commission or
omission having been indulged in by the said private party
respondents, such acts constituting offences punishable under Sections
380/403/406/420/497/498/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
2. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order
dated 02.03.2015, declined to issue any direction to the police
referring in this context to, inter alia, decision of this court reported as
M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2002 Crl.L.J. NOC 333
(Delhi). The petitioner challenged the said order before the court of
Sessions by Criminal Revision No.182/2015 which was dismissed by
the revisional court, by its decision dated 07.04.2016, endorsing the
view taken by the court below. It may be added here that by his order
dated 02.03.2015, while declining directions under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. the Metropolitan Magistrate indicated that he was inclined to
take cognizance and gave liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter
under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
3. Questioning the said two orders, the present petition has been
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for intervention by this court.
4. 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.
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 stands dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 25, 2018
vk
