RISHI PARKASH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2.4.1994 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Shahdara directing issue of process against the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving, rise to the present petition are that on 16.8.1987, Constable Rishi Pal was stabbed by Mahinder Kumar as a result whereof FIR No. 294/87 under Sections 307/353/186 Indian Penal Code . was registered against him and his associate Ram Kumar at the Police Station Vivek Vihar. On 24.8.1987, Mohinder Kumar and Ram Kumar were arrested by the Police. On that day, the petitioner was posted as SHO of the Police Station Vivek Vihar. It is alleged that Mahender Kumar and Ram Kumar were beaten up in the police lock up of the Police Station Vivek Vihar as a result whereof Mahender Kumar died in the J.P.N. Hospital. After holding inquest on the dead body, the SDM ordered for registration of the case against the concerned police officials. However, on 25.5.1987, FIR No. 59/87 under Sections 304/34 Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station Vivek Vihar in respect of the alleged incident. On 27.11.1987, deceased Mahinder Kumar's father Tikka Ram filed a complaint under Sections 302/34/323/342/343/167/201/217/218/119/120/211/109/114/120- B Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma sent the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide orders dated 7.12.1987. The enquiry was entrusted to the Inspector Kishan Singh, who submitted his interim report. On 15-10-1988, Inspector Kishan Singh was directed to make further enquiry. Pursuant to the said direction, an enquiry report was submitted before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.4.1989. In his report, Inspector Kishan Singh stated that there was a prima facie case against the police officials but some more evidence was required to prosecute them. Thereupon, Inspector Kishan Singh was again directed to make further investigation in the matter vide orders dated 10.4.1991. It appears that despite extension of time granted for further investigation, Inspector Kishan Singh did not submit his final report and so the complainant was directed to produce his witnesses for examination under Section 202 Cr.P.C. vide orders dated 19.10.1991. During the enquiry, the complainant produced certain witnesses before the Metropolitan Magistrate and also filed affidavits of some witnesses. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses produced by the complainant and the affidavits filed in support of the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/120-B/325/323/342/343/167/201/217/218 Indian Penal Code . and under Section 124 D.P. Act and directed issue of warrants of arrest against the petitioner and others vide orders dated 2.4.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma by filing a revision which was dismissed vide orders dated 7.4.1998. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel sub- Section (3) of Section 397 of the Code bars a second revision and this Court cannot act as second revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to circumvent or to nullify the express provision of the Code. But, if in a case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation where the glaring illegality or injustice stares the Court in the face, then notwithstanding the prohibition contained in sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code, power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to annual that illegality or injustice.