LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-23

VIKRAM BAKSHI Vs. STATE

Decided On September 07, 2017
VIKRAM BAKSHI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of a preliminary objection, raised by respondent No.2 in the present proceedings, regarding the maintainability of this petition (Crl.M.C. 2493/2017) under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the CrPC").

(2.) Exhaustive arguments, by Ms. Rebecca John and Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the question of issuance of notice and grant of interim relief, in the present petition, were heard by me. Before they were completed, Mr. Khosla (Mr. Deepak Khosla) raised a preliminary objection, to the effect that the present petition was not maintainable under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 He also insisted that I pass an order on the said preliminary objection, before proceeding to hear the petitioner, further, on the question of issue of notice in the present petition. In support of the said request, Mr. Khosla also sought to place reliance on various judicial authorities. Inasmuch as I am passing the present order, acceding to the said request made by Mr. Khosla, it is not necessary to refer to the said decisions.

(3.) The petitioner, in the present petition, has assailed the order, dated 22nd June, 2017, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South) (hereinafter referred to as "the ACMM") in Case No.5450 of 2017 (Deepak Khosla v. Vikram Bakshi and Anr.), which was an application filed by Mr. Khosla under section 94 of the CrPC, 1973. By the impugned order, the ACMM has expressed his prima facie satisfaction that forged documents were lying at the addresses mentioned in the application filed by Mr. Khosla and has, therefore, proceeded to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police of New Delhi, South East District, to conduct a search, for finding the said alleged documents, in terms of section 94 of CrPC, 1973., and file a report, alongwith the recovered documents, before the Court. The said directions, as contained in the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2017, read thus :-