PROMILA MANCHANDA & ANR Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second petitioner was allegedly subjected to physical assault and certain other offences including theft, mischief by certain other persons described as anti-social elements on 17.10.2013, the incident becoming subject matter of First Information Report (FIR) no.232/2013 of police station Nabi Karim involving offences punishable under Sections 379, 147, 148, 149, 427, 308, 34 IPC. The said FIR was entrusted for investigation to the second respondent, then employed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police posted in the area. The petitioner had some grievance against the second respondent that is the investigating officer of the aforementioned FIR and made complaint to the Commissioner of Police and to the Metropolitan Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the area to which the matter related. It appears certain inquiries were made of the second respondent by the Metropolitan Magistrate followed by directions to the effect that the grievance of the petitioner were treated as a criminal complaint. The Metropolitan Magistrate held pre-summoning inquiry and, on that basis, issued summons against the second respondent finding prima facie grounds to proceed against him for offences punishable under Sections 166A and 506 (1) of IPC.

(2.) The second respondent challenged the said order in the court of the Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petition (Crl. Revision No.12/2015). The revision petition was allowed by the additional sessions judge, by order dated 10.12015, thereby setting aside the summoning order against the second respondent passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.08.2015. The prime reason for such order being passed by the revisional court was that the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate after taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) into the complaint of the petitioner against the second respondent should not have proceeded with the pre-summoning inquiry, his obligation being to abide by the mandate of Section 191 Cr. PC wherein he was obliged to first offer to the second respondent as to whether he wished the inquiry into the matter to be held by another Magistrate and, if any such objection was raised, to transfer the matter to another Magistrate through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) The petitioners having felt aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the Sessions judge in revision have approached this court under Section 482 Cr. PC with the submission that the intervention by the Sessions court was unjust and improper.