NEENA Vs. SANDEEP MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 21st January, 2011, pass�d by learned ASJ, Delhi. The ground for filing the second petition for setting aside the order dated 21st January, 2011, passed by ASJ in Crl.Revision Petition No.105/10/10, is that the first petition bearing Crl.M.C.No.980/2011 was dismissed as withdrawn due to non understanding of the judgment in Dhariwal Tobaco Products Limited and others Vs.State of Maharashtra and Another � (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370, where the Supreme Court held that in their considered opinion V.K.Jain (Supra) does not lay down a good law and it was over-ruled.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in Adalat Prasad's case while observing that Mathew's case does not lay down correct law, it was further held that if Magistrate takes cognizance of offence, issues process without any allegation against accused or no material implicating accused or in contravention of provisions of Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., order of Magistrate may be vitiated. Aggrieved accused can obtain relief not by invoking Section 203 Cr.P.C., because Cr.P.C does not contemplate review of order. In the absence of any review power or inherent power with subordinate criminal courts, remedy lies in invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) AT the outset, it is necessary to mention that after withdrawal of the first petition No.980/2011, petitioner could not have filed the second petition, praying for the same relief. Thus filing of the present petition itself is a gross abuse of the process of law. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the earlier petition was withdrawn due to the reason referred to above, the legal position remains the same which was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 15th May, 2012. Since the respondent could have challenged the order by filing a revision petition and the order passed by the learned ASJ being passed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, duly vested in that Court, the impugned order calls for no interference.