Varun Gupta vs State & Anr

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J

CRL.M.A. 41950/2019

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

Crl. M.C. 6256/2019 & Crl. M.A. 41949/2019

Issue notice. Ld. APP for the state who appears on advance notice accepts notice.

The petitioner by way of the present petition is seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Ld. A.S.J., upholding

the charges framed by the Ld. MM vide order dated 24.09.2018.

It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that the petitioner is abusing the process of law and he is again and again filing the petition with the

same cause of action. He further submits that vide order dated 07.08.2019 the Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the similar petition

bearing CRL.M.C. 3901/2019 & Crl. M.A. 33052-53/2019, holding that the question of facts as raised in that petition can only be answered at the time

of trial. He further submits that the similar question of facts are being again raised by the petitioner in this petition and these grounds cannot be called

into question in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and are matter of trial.

In view of the submissions of the Ld. APP, I have perused the order dated 07.08.2019, passed by the Coordinate Bench in CRL.M.C. 3901/2019 &

Crl. M.A. 33052-53/2019. The Ld. MM vide order dated 24.09.2018 framed the charges against the petitioner U/s 354-A/(i) IPC, 323/451/354, 509

and 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner challenged the same before the Ld. A.S.J. by filing a revision petition. The Ld. A.S.J. vide

impugned order dated 15.04.2019 dismissed the revision petition upholding that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order on charge dated

24.09.2018 passed by the Ld. MM.

I have perused the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by this Court. The relevant portion of the order is as follows :

In above view, the order of the criminal court framing charge put the petitioner on trial has attained finality. From this, it naturally follows

that the charge which has been pressed before the trial court for such prosecution, as above, has been found to be based on substantive

primafacie material.

In these circumstances, it is inappropriate for a fresh petition to be filed to seek an inquiry into the issue of facts by this Court in the limited

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such question of facts as are raised will have to be answered only at the trial and it is impermissible

for the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to be invoked. [See. Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330].

By virtue of the present petition also the petitioner is once again seeking an inquiry into the facts of this case which as already observed by the

Coordinate Bench is not permissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction. I also subscribe with the same view and the inquiry into the facts as sought by the

petitioner in his petition cannot be gone into. The petition is, therefore dismissed and the Crl. M.A. 41949/2019 is also disposed of accordingly.