23# % 16.12.2010 Present:- Mr. Anil Gael, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP for state. + Crl. M.C. No. 3166/2008 * On the complaint of petitioner FIR No. 380 dated "'' 24.08.2001 U Is 420146814711 120-B IPC was registered at P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The petitioner filed an application U Is 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate praying therein that action be taken against the Investigating Officer and accused Asha Mittal. It was alleged that investigating officer had illegally withheld the statement U Is 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Asha Mittal. By the impugned order learned M.M. has imposed cost of I- upon the petitioner while disJJ?-issing the application. Trial Court has noted that Asha Mittal was not even an accused since application of petitioner U Is 190 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Asha Mittal, had already been dismissed. Revision against the aforesaid order has been dismissed Signing Date:05.08.2024 16:58:50 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 by the Additional Sessions Judge. That is how petitioner is before this court by way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Non-filing of statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Asha Mittal in the court, in my view, will not attract action uf s 340 Cr.P.C. against the investigating officer. Similarly, no cause of action had arisen against Asha Mittal for initiating any action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. since she was not even party to the proceedings. Basic grievance of the petitioner is against the imposition of cost by the learned M.M. Since application was devoid of merits, in my view, learned M.M. was justified in imposing cost. In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the courts below. Petition is dismissed. DECEMBER 16, 2010 pkv A.K. PATHAK, J. II