$-46 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + feRL.M.C. 1321/2011 '•SUSHMA Petitioner ; Through Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Adv. V versus STATE 85 ORS. Respondents Through Mr.Pravin Sharma, AFP CORAM: IhON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER % 27.04.2011 1. 1 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the judgment i and order dated 19.8.2010 passed in Criminal Revision bearing • no.36/2010 by Mr.Sanjay Sharma, ASJ-III (East) Karkardooma, Delhi upholding the order dated 17.7.2008 passed by Mr.R.K.Tripathi, the then MM dismissing the complaint bearing no.1603/2003 filed by the present petitioner for taking cognizance against the respondent herein under Section 316/506/34 IPC. 2. • The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she gave a statement as CW-1 during the course of pre-summoning evidence stating that she was four months pregnant when she was beaten up by her real brother, on account of which, the pregnancy was terminated. It was further alleged that the petitioner was r threatened by her brother. 3. The learned MM after recording the pre-summoning evidence Signing Date:28.08.2024 16:54:31 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified considered not only the evidence but also the provisions of law and came to the conclusion that no offence prima facie under Section 316/506/34 IPG is made out against the accused/respondents and accordingly, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the Court of. Sessions. The Court of Sessions had after detailed examination put the seal of approval ^ on the finding of the learned Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. I have also gone through both the orders. I do not find that there is any infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge ^much less there is any abuse of the processes of law. The learned Sessions judge has further taken note of the fact that the petitioner has already put criminal machinery into motion by lodging an FIR against his real brother by getting the case registered under Section 323/341/34 IPC in -# respect of which they are facing trial. 6. It has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that in case the petitioner is not able to establish during the course of the said trial that - the respondents have committed an offence under Section 316/506 IPC, she can always take recourse to Section 319 read with Section 216 Cr.P.C. for amendment of the charge. Therefore, I do not feel that it is a fit case which calls for any interference by this Court. 7. On the contrary, Section 397 (3) clearly lays down that any person who has availed of the remedy of revision cannot be permitted to have a second revision under the garb of invocation of provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not feel that this is a fit case which calls for any interference by this Court. 9. The petition is dismissed. V.K. SHALI,J APRIL 27,2011 RN