AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K.GAUBA, J
The petitioner is facing prosecution in two complaint cases (CC No. 5011/1/12 and CC No. 4784/1/12) in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate
wherein trial commenced with the service of notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with accusations of offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 having been leveled concerning cheque bearing nos. 174907 dated 03.02.2012 and
174906 dated 31.01.2012 for Rs. 10 lakh each. The petitioner had challenged the said prosecution and the orders whereby he was put on trial by the
Metropolitan Magistrate by approaching the Court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petitions (CR No. 75/14 & 76/2014) on the ground
that there was no averment in the complaint or in the evidence about the complainant i.e. the respondent herein having advanced the loan, for refund
of which the cheques had allegedly been issued. The revision petitions, however, were dismissed by similar judgments dated 12.03.2015. The
petitioner has sought to assail the orders of the revisional court through the petitions at hand filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Against the above backdrop, a question arose as to whether the petitioners having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take
recourse of Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a substitute for bringing virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section
397 (3) Cr.P.C.
This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4
SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571
and following similar view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99, in absence
of a special case being made out, has earlier declined to interfere by order dated 03.07.2018 in Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed. Â
The petitions and the pending applications are dismissed.