Delhi High Court
Amit Mehta vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 6 September, 2018
$~7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 06th September, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4175/2015
AMIT MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika
Mittal, Mr. Yugansh Mittal and Mr. Amit
Prakash Shahi, Advocates
versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with SI Rakesh Kumar, PS Saket.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, proxy counsel for R-2
to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had addressed a representation dated 28.05.2014
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), a copy whereof was
endorsed, amongst others, to the District & Sessions Judge, who made
it over to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM),
who, in turn, treated it as an application under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC). The ACMM called for
an action taken report from the police, presumably with reference to
the complaints that had been lodged earlier and, upon perusal of the
said report dated 19.08.2014, it declined to issue any direction for
investigation but, at the same time, opted to take cognizance
embarking upon an inquiry under Sections 200 & 202 Cr. PC. The
order dated 16.03.2015 to this effect was challenged in the court of
Sessions by Criminal Revision No.33/2015, which was dismissed by
the said court on 22.07.2015.
2. Aggrieved by the said view taken by the two courts below, the
present petition was filed invoking the inherent power of this court
under Section 482 Cr. PC.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court
finds no good grounds to interfere. A perusal of the petition dated
28.05.2014, which was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, South District and copy whereof was treated as a complaint
petition by the ACMM would show that the petitioner, and those on
his side, have had an on-going dispute with the parties against whom
allegations have been made, the same being subject matter of several
cases including criminal case no.237/2010, criminal case
no.2621/2013, pending in the court of the ACMM, Saket, New Delhi
and CJM, Mainpuri, U.P. respectively besides three FIRs they being
referred to as FIR nos.434/01, 358/96 and 33/13 of police stations
Karol Bagh, Mehrauli and Neb Sarai respectively. The allegations of
land grabbing, rape and criminal intimidation concerning the said
other cases have been set out in the complaint from which the present
proceedings arise as the background. Allegations have been made that
threats were extended, pursuant allegedly to a criminal conspiracy, to
falsely implicate the petitioner in a case involving breach of provisions
of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities
Act), 1989. The last element is described as the thrust of the case
which was attempted to be made out through the representation
addressed to the police on which investigation through "an intelligent
officer" was sought. The Metropolitan Magistrate has also taken it as
a case involving offence under Section 506 of the IPC. He found no
good grounds to direct an investigation. The view taken by the
magisterial court has been upheld by the revisional 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 a 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 application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
yg
