RAJIV KUMAR SADH Vs. GOVT OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Criminal Procedure Code) have prayed for quashing the order dated 25/12/1996 passed by the Court Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, M.M., New Delhi directing the police to investigate the complaint against petitioners, by respondent No. 2, under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code and the order dated 3/02/1997 dismissing the application praying for recalling the said order, holding that the petitioner has no locus standi. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 (here-in-after the petitioner) had been doing business of garments and the same was closed in 1995. Consequently claims of all the creditors were settled against written discharge. One of the parties with whom the petitioner had settled the accounts was the family concern of respondent No. 2. Copy of the alleged settlement has been placed on record. It is alleged that the complainant, with an intent to harass the petitioner and to blackmail him, lodged a false report with Crime Branch of Delhi Police. The petitioner on receipt of notices filed a petition Crl. M(M) 2441/96 under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for anticipatory bail and on 9.10.1996 it was ordered that if the petitioner is sought to be arrested he would be given 7 days' clear advance notice. The petitioner participated in the investigations and the Investigating Agency found no substance in the complaint. Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on the same facts. The Magistrate acting mechanically on 24.12.1996 ordered directing SHO, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, to investigate the matter. The order reads as under:

(2.) The petitioner filed another petition Criminal Misc.(Main) 106/97, praying for quashing of the above said order dated 24/12/1996 and the investigations thereon. The Investigating Agency was directed to look into all documents which were collected by the CID, Crimes including the earlier compromise between the parties and to and thereafter to submit its report to the Court. It was further ordered that in the event of arrest the petitioner be released on bail. Petition was thus disposed of.

(3.) The petitioner then moved an application before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate praying for dismissal of the complaint. The Trial Court declined to hear the petitioner holding that the petitioner has no locus standi. The order reads as under: