HASHMAT ALI Vs. AMAR SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the petitioner has assailed order dated 13.08.2014 whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the concerned SHO for registration of FIR. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate called action taken report (ATR) from SHO, P.S. Tughlaq Road, New Delhi. The complainant adduced pre-summoning evidence and examined himself as CW-1 and his father Haji Shaukat Ali as CW-2. The trial court in order to verify the allegations made by the complainant ordered for an investigation to the SHO, P.S. Tughlaq Road, New Delhi. The investigation report was filed by SI Bishambhar Dayal, who stated that the allegations made by the petitioner/ complainant are unbelievable because the evidence is not corroborated by any witness including the Paanwala. After considering the said report filed by Inspector Sunil Kumar, the prayer under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was declined by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.44/2014, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi vide impugned order dated 13.08.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the matter on record.