In the matter of :- [[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 IN THE COURT OF : SH. KANWALJEET ARORA : ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH WEST 03 ROHINI COURTS : NEW DELHI. Crl.Rev.No. : 63 / 2013. Under sec. : 397 [ACT] [ENTITY], Through its President, (Authorized Representative) 514, Pearls Omaxe,Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi - 110034. [ Revisionist] v e r s u s 1. M/s [ENTITY], IInd Floor, Vaishali Building, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110063. 2. Sh.[ENTITY] (Director), Kothi No.2138, PhaseVII, Mohali, District Ropar, Punjab160062. 3. Sh.[ENTITY] (Director), Village Jhandiali, PO Sirhand, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab160062. 4. M/s [ENTITY], 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi. 5. Shri [ENTITY] (Chairman & Managing Director), M/s [ENTITY], 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi. [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] / 13 Page 1 of 27 In the matter of :- [[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 6. Shri [ENTITY] (Joint Managing Director), M/s [ENTITY], 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019. 7. Shri [ENTITY], Whole Time Director, M/s [ENTITY], 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019. 8. M/s [ENTITY], K17, AB, Near Balaji Estate, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019. 9. Mr.[ENTITY] (Director), M/s [ENTITY], K17, AB, Near Balaji Estate, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019. 10. Mr.[ENTITY] (Director), M/s [ENTITY], K17, AB, Near Balaji Estate, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019. 11. State (NCT of Delhi) [ Respondents] Date of Allocation : 16.09.2013. Date of Institution of Revision : 17.09.2013. Date of conclusion of arguments : 23.02.2015. Date of Order : 26.02.2015. [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] / 13 Page 2 of 27 In the matter of :- [[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 [Particulars related to impugned order] C.C. No. : 26/01/13 Under Section : 156(3) of [ACT] Date of Impugned Order : 11.07.2013. Name of Ld.Trial Court : Sh.[ENTITY], Ld.MM05, Rohini. Memo of appearance: Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the revisionist. Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 [ENTITY]. Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Ld.Counsel for respondent no. 4 to 10. Ms.[ENTITY], Ld. APP for respondent no.11 State. O R D E R :
1. M/s [ENTITY] (Regd.), the revisionist, had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 11.07.2013, passed by Sh.[ENTITY], Ld.MM05, North West District, Rohini, whereby the application under [SECTION] [ACT] filed by the revisionist, the complainant therein, seeking directions to the concerned SHO for registration of FIR against the respondents, was dismissed.
In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015
2. Pursuant to filing of the present revision petition, Trial Court Record was summoned by Ld.Predecessor of this Court. Notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. On being notified, they tendered their appearances, through their respective Counsels.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the revisionist. Sh[ENTITY], Advocate had advanced arguments on behalf of respondent no.2. Sh.[ENTITY] along with Sh.[ENTITY], Advocates, Ld.Counsels for respondent no.4 to 10, advanced arguments on behalf of these respondents. Ms.[ENTITY], Ld.APP represented respondent no.11, the State. Ld.Counsels for respondent no.2, Ld.Counsel for respondent no.1 and 3 as well as Ld.Counsel for respondent no.4 to 10. In order to augment their oral contentions, had also filed written submissions.
4. I have considered the oral as well as written submissions, so advanced and have also perused the In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 precedents relied upon by Ld.Counsel for the Revisionist in support of his contentions as well the precedents relied upon by Ld.Counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the impugned order dated 11.07.2013 whereby application under [SECTION] [ACT] filed on behalf of petitioner who is complainant therein, was dismissed.
5. Facts in nutshell which led to passing of the impugned order dated 11.07.2013 by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, as emanating out of the Revision Petition and the Trial Court Record, which are necessary for disposal of present revision petition are delineated as under:
(a) Revisionist herein had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents in the Court of Ld.ACMM, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, for proceeding against them for various offences under [ACT], alleging therein that the respondents had hatched a conspiracy in furtherance of which, they have cheated the complainant and have caused wrongful gain to themselves and In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 wrongful loss to the complainant.
(b) Petitioner in his complaint has alleged that complainant is a "Welfare Association" registered under the "[ACT]", constituted to look after the interest and welfare of the alottees / occupants of the commercial units, in the commercial complex, known as "Pearlsomaxe", situated at Plot No.B1, District Centre, Wazirpur, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi.
(c) It is alleged that respondent no.1, the company of which respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 are the Directors, is the owner of this Commercial Complex.
(d) It is alleged that respondent no.4, the company which functions through its Directors ie. Respondent No. 5, 6 and 7, is the developer of this Commercial Complex, who had constructed and developed the same.
(e) It is further alleged that respondent no.8, the company, of which respondent no.9 and 10, are the In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 Directors, is the Maintenance Agency, appointed by respondent no.1 and 4, to look after the maintenance of the Commercial Complex ie. "Pearlsomaxe".
(f) It is alleged that this commercial complex has about 300 offices / shops / apartments which were allotted to their respective purchasers by the respondent accused after receiving the purchase amount vide duly signed "Builder Buyer Agreement" and thus are in possession of their respective units.
(g) It is submitted that these allottees / purchasers of 300 units are the members of the complainant association, which functioning through its President, had filed the present revision petition.
(h) It is alleged that as per the DDA Auction Letter, the total FAR allotted to the respondents of this commercial complex was 2,34,99.832 sq.metres ie. 2,52,905.20 sq.feet., whereas, respondents by misrepresenting the real area to be 3,08,000 sq.feet, had sold the same to the members of the complainant association and had In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 charged the consideration amount of more area than was actually allotted to them by DDA.
(i) It is alleged that the respondents now are charging maintenance on the basis of this fictitious superarea from the members of the complainant association, which is much more than, that was allotted to the respondents by DDA and thus are causing wrongful gain to themselves and corresponding wrongful loss to the allottees / members of the complainant association.
(j) It is alleged that complainant association had earlier filed a complaint with the police against the respondents, on which no action, whatsoever was taken and thereafter had preferred a complaint before Ld.ACMM, North West District under [SECTION] of [ACT], along with which an application under [SECTION] [ACT] was filed seeking appropriate directions to the concerned SHO, for registration of FIR and investigations.
In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015
6. It is apparent from the Trial Court Record that Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing detailed arguments on behalf of the petitioner, who is complainant therein, had passed detailed orders dated 11.07.2013 thereby dismissing the application under [SECTION] [ACT] and directed the petitioner herein, to lead presummoning evidence.
7. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of present revision petition.
8. It is submitted by Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the petitioner that Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take into consideration that there are certain aspects which are required to be investigated by the police and without taking them into account, his application under [SECTION] [ACT] has been declined. He further contended that the complaint filed by him did disclose commission of cognizable offences, whereby, it became mandatory on the part of concerned court to direct concerned SHO to register FIR, but Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate failed to take the same In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 into consideration. He contended relying upon certain precedents that the present dispute between the parties, is not only a civil wrong, but clearly depicts commission of cognizable offences, for which it is necessary that FIR should be registered. He contended that there are certain aspects which can only be investigated by the investigating agency, therefore, the impugned order be setaside and necessary directions be issued to the concerned SHO.
9. On the other hand, Ld.Counsels for the respondents namely Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Sh[ENTITY], Advocate, Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, appearing for the respondents through their Oral submissions as well as written arguments had contended that the dispute between the parties, if any, is a Civil Dispute which complainant association has tried to camouflage so as to give it a criminal colour. It is submitted by them that even otherwise, no revision lies against the impugned order, whereby application under [SECTION] [ACT] was dismissed.
In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015
10. Another limb to the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents, was that there is no illegality in the orders passed by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, as all the documents and material required for adjudication of the dispute is in the power and possession of the allottees of this commercial complex, who are members of the complainant association and nothing is required to be investigated.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced in the light of precedents cited and have perused the material on the Trial Court Record and also the impugned order dated 11.07.2013.
12. Before adverting to delve upon the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties on merits, I would first consider the contentions advanced by Ld.Counsels for the respondents that no revision under [SECTION] [ACT], is maintainable against the orders passed by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate on an application under [SECTION] [ACT] Ld.Counsel for respondents In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 had contended that the impugned order is an interlocutary order, therefore, revision petition is not maintainable as per [SECTION] [ACT]
13. [SECTION] [ACT] empowers a Sessions Court, to call for and examine the records of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its local jurisdiction, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to regularity of any proceeding, so conducted. These powers are required to be exercised by Sessions Court, subject to SubSection 2, which creates a bar on the revisional jurisdiction with respect to any interlocutary order.
14. It is apparent on perusal of the record that the orders passed by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.07.2013 is not an interlocutary order. Disposal of application under [SECTION] [ACT] vide impugned order by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate involves decision making based on judicious approach to exercise the In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 judicial discretion. The same by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed as interlocutary order. The impugned order is a judicial order passed by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby application under [SECTION] [ACT] was finally disposed off. Meaning thereby that the embargo of interlocutary order as created by Legislature in [SECTION] [ACT] to entertain the revision petition, does not comes into play. Thus, the same is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under [SECTION] [ACT] Therefore, the contentions advanced by Ld.Counsel for the respondents that the present revision petition is not maintainable against the impugned order, is turned down.
15. Having held that the present revision is maintainable, I shall consider the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, on merits.
16. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that the scope of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction is limited and is required to be exercised only if, it is found that some injustice has resulted due In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 to impugned order passed by Ld.Trial Court. Further, if the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order has acted, contrary to the well established principles of Law, or the order has been passed without any evidence to support the finding or if the finding arrived at, by Ld.Trial Court is perverse or such as no reasonable man could have arrived at on the same, on the basis of evidence so produced before it.
17. In the backdrop of above, I shall consider the next limb of arguments advanced by Ld.Counsels for rival parties. It is contended by Ld.Counsel for respondents that neither revision nor complaint of the complainant is maintainable as the same does not disclose commission of any criminal offence on the part of respondents and dispute if any,the same gives rise to a civil action. Sh.[ENTITY], Advocate, Ld.Counsel for revisionist however contended that apart from committing civil wrongs, respondents have committed cognizable criminal offences, therefore, complainant is well within his rights to lodge the complaint against the respondents for initiating criminal proceedings against In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 them.
18. I have considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties.
19. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "[ENTITY] & Ors. vs. R.Vijaykumar" bearing [CASE NUMBER] decided on 14.10.2014, and the case titled "[ENTITY] & Anr. vs. State of UP & Ors" reported as AIR 2000 SC 754, had dealt with such sort of cases which raises disputes of Civil Nature having some aspects of criminal wrongs interwoven in the same.
20. In [ENTITY]'s Case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the observations made by it, in its earlier judgement in [ENTITY]'s Case (supra), did state that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or seeking personal vandata, and it is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a Civil Nature, have been given a cloak of Criminal Offence. It is further In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 observed that criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for the other remedies available in law.
21. In said case, Hon'ble Apex Court while observing the peculiar facts of said case, did hold that the same discloses only a Civil Dispute between the parties, and filing of Criminal Complaint after loosing the Civil Litigation, has amounted to misuse and abuse of law, being motivated.
22. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case and even otherwise as well, it is the solemn duty of the Court to guard against any vexatious and malicious prosecution, more particularly, when a criminal color and flavour is given by a party to a Civil Dispute, discarding the appropriate remedies available for its redressal. However, facts of each case differ, therefore, no straightjacket formula can be adopted so as to debar or debunk, all criminal prosecution, merely because the dispute between the parties raises certain civil issues as well. As adopting such an approach would instead of augmenting justice, In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 would rather thwart the same.
23. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements that there are a number of instances where Criminal Law and Civil Law can run and be invoked, side by side. It has also been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that both these remedies are mutually exclusive and clearly coextensive. Both these remedies differ in their content consequences, scope and import. Thus, each case is required to be considered on the basis of its own peculiar facts.
24. Whenever the peculiar facts of a particular case involving some Civil Angle in it, gives rise to certain actions or inactions, disclosing commission of any cognizable offence, then initiation of Criminal Action cannot and should not throttled. Merely because, the act has a Civil Profile, the same cannot be said to be sufficient to delude it, of its criminal outfit or import.
25. In view of the above observations, the facts of the present case, as disclosed in the complaint were In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 considered by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate and vide impugned order, he finding some substance in the same giving rise to initiation of criminal action, did proceed with the complaint and listed it for recording of pre summoning evidence.
26. It is pertinent to mention here that the revision petition has been filed by the complainant and respondents have not challenged the impugned oder dated 11.07.2013 passed by Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to delve further as to whether the complaint so filed, by the complainant depicts only civil wrong and does not disclose any facts on the basis of which any criminal action can be initiated against the respondents, as has been argued and contended by Ld.Counsels for the respondents, the same being beyond the scope of present petition.
27. In case, respondents were aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2013, whereby Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded further with the complaint, then they could have challenged the same. But that was not In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 to be.
28. Be that as it may.
29. This has brought me down to the main contention urged by Ld.Counsel for the revisionists. It is submitted that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences on the part of respondents. Further, the offences are such, for which investigations are required by the investigating agency. Therefore, the impugned order is bad as Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to appreciate this contention and declined the registration of FIR.
30. Ld.Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention had relied upon certain precedents.
31. I have considered the contentions advanced and have also gone through the precedents relied upon.
32. There is no dispute with respect to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by Hon'ble In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 High Court in the precedents relied upon. However facts of each case differs and are required to be seen in the context and circumstances of that case for giving any finding or order.
33. The sole question which requires to be considered here is as to whether Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate is required to direct the concerned SHO to register an FIR, merely because a complaint is filed before him, alongwith an application under [SECTION] [ACT] seeking such directions.
34. The answer is not hard to seek. It is not obligatory on the part of Court to order registration of FIR on mere asking. The Court is under an obligation to see and peruse the facts of the case before it, to arrive at any decision.
35. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "[PRECEDENT]." in [CASE NUMBER], decided on 03.05.2013 has held as under:
In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 "When a magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under [SECTION] will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was premarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offece [PRECEDENT] Page 6 of 11itself."
36. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent decision titled "[PRECEDENT]." in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 24.02.2014, has held as under:
"11. Thus, the magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set in motion on mere asking of a party. There has to be some substance in the complaint filed and it In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 is only if it appears that the allegations are serious enough and establish the commission of cognizable offence which require a thorough investigation by the police, an FIR should be ordered to be registered.
12. In the instant case, the respondents are known to the petitioner and the evidence on which the petitioner relies is within his knowledge and control. It cannot be said that the petitioner has been put to an impossible task. If need were to arise for investigation, such possibility is not precluded as learned trial court has entered upon the inquiry under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]. Proviso to [SECTION] [ACT] permit such investigation to be ordered at an appropriate stage of the proceedings. In the CR NO.
34/14 [PRECEDENT] Page 7 of 11result, I do not find any illegality or informity in the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi."
37. Earlier in the year 2013, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "[PRECEDENT], decided on 04.02.2013, the order of In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 referring the matter to police for registration of an FIR had set aside on the basis of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "[PRECEDENT]) & [PRECEDENT]. The said guidelines are reproduced as under:
"(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under [SECTION] [ACT] of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the Complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the complainant.
It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the [PRECEDENT] when approached by the Complainant under [SECTION] of the Code. (ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the Complaint which can be tried in his In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015 jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the Police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the Order passed by him. Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing final orders. (iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a Complaint under [SECTION] of the Code, should invariably proceed under [SECTION] by taking cognizance of the Complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully [PRECEDENT] Page 9 of 11entitled to postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report under [SECTION] of the Code. (iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under [SECTION] of the Code when an application under [SECTION] of the Code is also filed alongwith a Complaint under [SECTION] of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the Complaint.
However, in that case, the In the matter of :- [[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015
Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under [SECTION], should not only satisfy himself about the pre requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to proceed under [SECTION] instead of [SECTION] of the Code."
38. In the light of above, I have considered the impugned order. Perusal of which reveals that Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate had taken into account all these guidelines while considering as to whether the case in hand requires registration of FIR or not.
39. After perusing all the relevant facts required for disposal of application under [SECTION] [ACT] of the petitioner, Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate had formed an opinion that the present complaint does not warrants directions to the police for registration of FIR.
In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015
40. In view of these observations of Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate which are the correct derivatives on the basis of facts alleged in the complaint, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders dated 11.07.2013. Suffice is to say that I have not been able to find out any impropriety, incorrectness or illegality in the impugned order, warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Needless to say that the facts alleged by the complainant can always be substantiated by the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint.
41. Further, if at any point of stage, assistance of police is required, Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate even after taking cognizance and proceeding under [SECTION] of [ACT], can still order investigations under [SECTION] [ACT]
42. Consequently, there are no grounds in the present revision petition for interfering with the impugned order dated 11.07.2013. Revision Petition accordingly stands dismissed.
In the matter of :-
[[ENTITY] Vs. M/s [ENTITY] & Ors.] [CASE NUMBER] Dated : 26th February 2015
43. Before parting with this order, I wish to add that nothing mentioned hereinabove, shall tantamount to any expression on merits of the case, as the same have been observed only for disposal of the present revision petition.
44. Copy of this order be kept in the file of the revision petition.
45. The Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
46. The revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court of 26th Day of February, 2015.
([ENTITY]) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI.