NASEEM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing prosecution on the basis of reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted in two different cases arising out of first information report (FIR) No.19/2006 of Police Station Defence Colony and FIR No.67/2006 of Police Station Lajpat Nagar. In each case, allegations have been made about his complicity in certain acts of commission or omission statedly constituting, inter alia, offences under Section 387/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In each case, charges have been framed against him by the Metropolitan Magistrate, inter alia, for offence punishable under Section 387 IPC, the orders having been passed on 22.08.2014 and 24.08.2013. It may be mentioned here that in the former case, a separate charge under Section 506 IPC was also framed.

(2.) The petitioner had challenged the said aforesaid orders before the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction, his prime contention being that on the basis of the material which had been submitted in each case, charge only for the offence under Section 385 IPC is attracted, the charge under Section 387 having been pressed to skirt around the issue of limitation. His contentions to this effect have been repelled by the revisional court, his Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2014 in the first case having been dismissed on 25.09.2014 and by Criminal Revision Petition Nos.90/2013 and 204817/2016 in the second case by orders dated 25.11.2013 and 12.04.2018 respectively.

(3.) For completion of narration, it may be added here that in the context of second above mentioned case after the petitioner had failed before the revisional court on 25.11.2013, he had come up with Crl.M.C.664/2014 to this court seeking to assail the said decision which was withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 12.08.2015, the petitioner having been given liberty "to take appropriate legal remedy". The petitioner thereafter had taken out the second criminal revisional challenge which was repelled by the court of Sessions on 12.04.2018 primarily on the ground that it could not be entertained.