ID No. 02406R0193142013 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 AND SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI Criminal Revision No. 74/2013 ID No. 02406R0193142013 [ENTITY] , Revisionist s/o Sh. R. K. Jaitely r/o D-2/81, Goldcroft CGHS, Plot no. 4, Sector - 11, Dwaka , New Delhi Versus [ENTITY] Respondent no. 1 [ENTITY] r/o WZ 106/136 Rajouri Garden Extension, New Delhi Respondent no. 2 M/s [ENTITY] through its Director [ENTITY] having office at WZ 106/136, Rajouri Garden Extension, near Cabridge foundation School, New Delhi Respondent no. 3 M/s [ENTITY] through its Directors having its office at C-127, IInd Floor, Jawahar Park, Khanpur, New Delhi Respondent no. 4 Instituted on : 25th July,2013 Argued on : 30th September , 2013 Decided on : 30th September , 2013 ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 24.06.2013 passed by Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South East District, Saket Amber Jaitley vs [ENTITY] and ors. [CASE NUMBER] 1/4 ID No. 02406R0193142013 Courts, New Delhi, whereby an application under [SECTION] [ACT] filed by the revisionist in a complaint case ([CASE NUMBER]) has been dismissed.
2. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. [ENTITY] Learned counsel for revisionist and Sh. [ENTITY] Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 and Sh. [ENTITY] Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and have perused the record.
3. Relevant background facts of the case, are that complainant is an employee of Modi Group of Industries and on 08.04.2013, a complaint was filed by him against respondents stating that on 08.04.2013, he was wrongfully restrained and criminally intimidated by respondent and despite complaint, no FIR was registered by the police. Complainant filed an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. During pendency of application u/[SECTION] [ACT], accused persons filed an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] for directing police to produce original complaints filed by complainant. Said application was dismissed on 24.06.2013. Being aggrieved, present revision petition is filed by revisionist.
4. At the outset, Learned Addl. PP pointed out that impugned order is an interlocutory order and therefore, this revision is not maintainable. Learned Counsel appearing for revisionist submits that impugned order is not an interlocutory order. He submits that objective of [SECTION] [ACT] is to check the delay. He urged that while considering the fact that order is an interlocutory or not, Court has to consider nature, context and bearing of the order. It is submitted that vide impugned order an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] is decided finally and complaint would be remedy-less. He submits that application has not Amber Jaitley vs [ENTITY] and ors. [CASE NUMBER] 2/4 ID No. 02406R0193142013 been considered on merits and was held to be non-maintainable by Learned Trial Court. It is argued that complainant filed an application to the Commissioner of Police alleging bias on the part of police and that on 09.05.2013, a cross case FIR was registered against complainant at the instance of respondent no. 2. Learned Trial Court had called status report wherein it was mentioned that this case is counter blast of the case filed by the respondents.
5. On asking, it is submitted that an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] moved by complainant is still pending consideration of the Trial Court and has yet not been finally disposed of. In support, Learned counsel relied upon "Amar Nath and others vs [ENTITY] of Haryana and another"1; "Madhu Limaye vs [ENTITY] of Maharashtra"2 and "K. K. Patel & Anr. vs [ENTITY] of Gujarat & Anr."3
6. In "[PRECEDENT]" Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the application u/[SECTION] [ACT] for production of documents was an order which was interlocutory in nature. The ratio of said case is binding on this Court. The impugned order is in no way a final order and is clearly an ancillary order passed in a proceeding, which is pending before the Trial Court. Accused persons have not yet been summoned and application u/[SECTION] [ACT] is pending consideration before the Trial Court. Impugned order cannot be held to be a final or an intermediate order, as suggested by Learned counsel for revisionist. It has not decided anything conclusively. Impugned order being interlocutory, revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked, in view of the [PRECEDENT] Amber Jaitley vs [ENTITY] and ors. [CASE NUMBER] 3/4 ID No. 02406R0193142013 Bar under [SECTION] [ACT] Even on merits, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, as the Trial Court has yet to dispose of pending application u/[SECTION] [ACT] It may however, be noted that if required, Trial Court can seek any clarification from police of its own motion and look into or call for any record and even after taking cognizance, direct investigation by the police officer or by such other persons, as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Guidelines which are to be followed by Courts of Magistrates while dealing with application under [SECTION] of the Code are laid down in Subhkarna Luharuka Vs. [ENTITY]5.
7. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the open Court on 30th September, 2013 ([ENTITY]) ASJ-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South East, South-East, Saket Court/New Delhi 5. 170(2010) DLT 516 Amber Jaitley vs [ENTITY] and ors. [CASE NUMBER] 4/4