-X H • $-42 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 1320/2009 RAM RATTAN SHARMA Through: Versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Through: Petitioner Petitioner with Mr.Nishant Bhardwaj, Advocate. Respondent Mr.Saleem Ahmed, ASC with SI Rajbala, P.S.DIU CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA ORDER 02.12.2011 This is a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India readwith Section482 CrPC againsttheorderdated 19'" February,2007 of learned ASJ, which came to be passed in the revision petition filed by the respondent/State against the order of learned M.M. dated 4.12.2006. Vide order dated 4.12.2006, the learned M.M. had directed the investigation to be carried out by the Crime branch. The revision petition was filed by the Delhi Police againstthe said order before the learnedASJ which came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.2.2007. Vide this order, ASJ directed Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified L- investigation to be done by the District Investigation Unit (DIU). Relying upon the judgment of Ajay Raj Sharma Vs. State in Crl.Writ Petition No. 1077/99, it was observed by the ASJ that the court of M.M. had no jurisdiction to transfer the investigation from police to the Crime Branch. Consequently, the learned ASJ transferred the investigation to the District Investigation Unit. The matter was subsequently investigated by the DIU which also did not find any substance in the FIR and has submitted the cancellation report. The petitioner herein is not ^ satisfiedwith the investigationconductedby the Delhi Policeas also by DIU and has assailed the order of the learned ASJ stating that the said order was passed without hearing him. It is seen from the impugned order dated 19.2.2007 that the order was passed by the ASJ based on law and from the record of Trial Court. There was no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner in the proceedings before the ASJ disposing of the revision petition filed by the State with or without notice to the petitioner. In any case, the order was passed on 19.2.2007 and the same has been 4; assailed after more than a period of two years in the present petition. The petitionerpresent in person when questionedas to when he came to know about the said order of the ASJ, said that, when the DIU contacted him in the year 2006-2007. That shows that the petitioner was aware of the order of the learned ASJ when it was passed and there is a belateddelay. Otherwisealso, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordinglydismissed. However, in case, the petitioner has any grievance which is still continuing. he canhave his recourse under Section200 CrPCbefore the court of learnedM.M. Petition stands disposed of. DECEMBER 02,2011 akb M.L. MEHTA,J