LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-177

NARESH BANSAL Vs. STATE

Decided On August 26, 2019
Naresh Bansal Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19.08.2004, the petitioner presented a criminal complaint (No.473/1/2004) in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (CMM, Delhi) alleging offences punishable under sections 365/368/342/341/506/323/330 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by the second to eighth respondents herein, along with one another (Constable Vijay Kumar) (since deceased). The said criminal complaint was subjected to inquiry under sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the course of which three witnesses were examined, they including the petitioner (complainant before the Magistrate) himself appearing (as CW-1) on 07.06.2010, the other two witnesses examined being Raj Kumar (CW-2), an official of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini and Rajeev Kumar (CW-3), an official of Bhagwati Hospital, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi, the last said witness having been examined on 15.10.2012. Thereafter, at the stage of consideration of the material that had been brought on record, by order dated 22.01.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate deemed it necessary to direct investigation to be carried out under section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) through a responsible police officer. A report of investigation pursuant to the said direction for investigation under section 202(1) Cr.P.C. was submitted on 20.05.2015. Upon consideration of such material as had come on record during the inquiry, the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 17.12.2015 found no grounds to proceed further. It was instead concluded that the complaint lacked truthfulness. The complaint was, thus, dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The order dated 17.12.2015 of the Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction (by Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2016). The revision petition was dismissed, the view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate having been upheld, by order dated 16.08.2016.

(3.) The present petition was filed bringing yet another challenge to the consistent orders of the two courts below, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition has been resisted also by the first respondent/State, it having filed status reports. Submissions of both sides have been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused.