29 % 06.04.2011 Present: Mr. S.K. Gandhi and Mr. Sanjay Khandelwal, Advs. for the petitioner. Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for the State. Crl. M.A. No. 4183/2011 fexemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. + Crl. M.C. No. 1148/2011 •k Petitioner filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi praying therein that the respondents be summoned, tried and punished under Sections 384/385/387/389/211/506 read with Sections 34/120-B IPG. After recording pre-summoning evidence Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 19^^ November, 2009, arrived at a finding that there was a, prima facie, case made out for summoning the respondents under Sections 384 and 385 read with Sections 34/120-B IPG. Respondents preferred Grl. Revision Petition No. 182/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi which has been allowed by the order impugned in this petition. After scrutinizingthe material on record. Additional Sessions Judge has held that no 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 prima facie case was disclosed for summoning the respondents since the facts alleged in the complaint were inconsistent with the statements of petitioner (CWl), inasmuch as CW2 had given allegations different version of the incident. Petitioner was landlord of one Smt. Shree. Petitioner asked her to vacate the tenanted premises. However, she refused to do so. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2, who happen to be police officers, threatened the petitioner at the instance of Smt. Shree with dire consequences, inasmuch as they demanded lacs. It was also alleged in the complaint that on 17th June, 2008 petitioner had been called at the police station where respondent No. 2 demanded lacs lest he would face dire consequences. Additional Sessions Judge has noted that the statements of CWl and CW2 were in variance vis-a-vis averments made in the complaint on this aspect. CWl had stated that respondent No. 2 came to petitioner's house on 20th/21st May, 2008 and demanded ?3 lacs. He also threatened him. As against this, CW2 stated that the incident happened in June and further that, while he was passing through house of petitioner, he heard respondent No. 2 demanding ?2.5 lacs from petitioner in the impugned judgment contradictions on the factual aspect have been discussed in detail. In view of the above, it is clear that inconsistent stand has been taken not only by the petitioner but also by his witness, since the finding of facts have been returned by the Additional Sessions Judge after marshalling the complaint as well as the statements of witnesses, I find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is dismissed. A.K. PATHAK, J. APRIL 06, 2011 rb