$2 1 * IN THE IIIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.22/2011 P K CHAUHAN Petitioner Through: Mr. C. S. Rathour, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA ORDER % 07.12.2011 This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.0 preferred by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 20.11.2010 passed by learned ASJ, Delhi in Cr1. Revision No.38/20 10 filed by one of the accused namely Rakesh Paliwal whereby the learned ASJ remanded the matter back to learned MM. A complaint was filed by the petitioner on 17.4.2006 against the accused persons namely Sushil Kumar, Rakesh Paliwal, sonu, Pappu and some unknown persons under Sections 34 1/342/357/386/34 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act. Learned MM recorded the statement of the complainant and ordered for issuance of summons vide order dated 9.7.2008. Against the said order, Rakesh Paliwal who was arrayed as an accused no.2 in the said complaint went in revision before the learned ASJ. The learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2010 remanded back the matter to learned MM to re-consider the matter in view of the observations made in the said order. Vide the same order, the revision petition was disposed of and an opportunity was granted to the complainant 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 to bring on record further evidence. It is against the said order that the complainant/ petitioner herein filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the impugned order wherein it is recorded that the complaint was made on 16.4.2006 whereas it was not 16.4.2006 but 17.2.2006 when the complaint was made to the police with regard to the first incident that took place on 16.2.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was no complaint made to the police on 16.4.2006, there could not have been any complaint on record and so the observations made by learned ASJ is contrary to the record and the same has prejudiced the petitioner herein. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while remanding back the matter to learned MM, the learned ASJ has discharged the accused persons. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Rakesh Paliwal. It is seen that even in the order of learned MM dated 19.7.2008, the date of filing of the complaint is recorded as 16.4.2006 and not 17.2.2006. Presumably, it may be that the learned ASJ has recorded the date of filing of the complaint to the police as 16.4.2006 and not 17.2.2006 from this order of the M.M. Admittedly, no complaint 47- was made or the matter was reported by the petitioner with regard to the incident that took place on 17.2.2006. The complaint which came to be filed before the learned MM was with regard to the incident that allegedly took place on 16.4.2006. The controversy with regard to the fact as to why the matter was not reported by the petitioner to the police after the incident of 17.2.2006 and 16.4.2006 particularly when the petitioner was a lawyer and had a mobile phone with him, could not be gone in this petition. Under these circumstances that the matter was remanded back by learned ASJ to learned MM with the direction that the opportunity be given to the petitioner to lead further evidence and to re-consider the matter afresh. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. M.L. MEHTA,J DECEMBER 07, 2011