(1.) By way of present petition filed under Ss. 482 and 483 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to assail order dtd. 23/6/2023 passed by the learned M.M., Dwarka, New Delhi vide which charges have been framed against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Ss. 323/427/34 IPC.
(2.) Briefly, the FIR in the present case came to be registered on the complaint of one Jitender Hallan wherein he alleged that certain disputes arose between him and his business partners Kamaljeet and Yashpal Sharma and that on 4/12/2017, Kamaljeet and one Pammy Solanki @ Pannu reached the construction site and on instructions of the petitioner, complainant and his employees were given beatings. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed under Ss. 323/341/308/427/34 IPC. While hearing arguments on charge, learned ASJ came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to frame charge for the offences punishable under Ss. 308/341 IPC however, he found enough material for framing of charges under Ss. 323/427/34 IPC. As the offences under Ss. 323/427/34 IPC were triable by the Magistrate, the matter was remanded to the court of concerned M.M vide order dtd. 18/8/2022. The concerned M.M. thereafter passed the impugned order.
(3.) In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner's case rests solely on the submission that the charged offence being non-cognizable, there is noncompliance of Sec. 155(2) Cr.P.C., as no prior permission was taken from the Magistrate before investigation. This submission is misplaced and rejected. In N.K. Sharma v. State,[Order/judgement dtd. 20/9/2002 passed in CRL.Misc.Main. 2042/2001] a Division Bench of this Court was faced with an almost similar issue, wherein while answering the reference, it was observed:-