Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ASJ-05, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW
DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 409/2022
Tinku Vs Rahul Kaushik
01.08.2022
Fresh criminal revision petition under section 397 r/w 399
Cr.PC received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as
per rules.
Present: Sh. Sahil Jain, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Heard.
This is a criminal revision petition u/s 397 r/w 399 Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC) filed by revisionist
praying for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by Ld. MM,
PHC, NDD, ND.
The revisionist is aggrieved by the dismissal of the
application under section 156 (3) Cr.PC in a complaint case titled as Tinku
Vs Rahul Kaushik.
The Ld. MM has perused the chargesheet in case bearing no.
236/2019, PS Special Cell and after perusal of the chargesheet observed
that facts alleged in the present application have already been investigated
by the investigating officer in above said FIR and present complainant has
been listed as a witness. Accordingly, the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC was
dismissed.
During course of arguments, it is admitted by the Ld. Counsel
for the revisionist that applicant/accused has already filed complaint
alongwith an affidavit in PS Special Cell, Delhi. The allegations levelled by
the complainant have already been considered during the investigation of
the FIR No. 236/2019, PS Special Cell and it is also admitted fact that
complainant is listed as a witness in the said FIR.
-- 1 of 2 --
(2)
Crl. Rev. No. 409/2022
Tinku Vs Rahul Kaushik
The Ld. MM held that registration of fresh FIR on the same
facts would lead to double jeopardy. The observation of Ld. MM is true
under the provision of law. The allegations levelled by the revisionist have
already been investigated in case FIR no. 236/2019, PS Sepcial Cell, Delhi,
therefore, there could not be any direction for registration of second FIR on
the same set of allegations.
The complainant seems to be dissatisfied by the investigation
carried out in FIR no. 236/2019, PS Special Cell, Delhi with regard to his
allegations, however, if the complainant is dissatisfied with the
investigation, he is having right to file a protest petition or any other
appropriate application in case/FIR no. 236/2019, PS Special Cell, Delhi as
per provisions of law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed
by Ld. MM. The revisionist has fails to raise any justified ground
sustainable in the eyes of law.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that
revisionist has failed to satisfy this court that impugned order sufferes from
any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, it is clear that Ld. MM has rightly
passed the order dated 02.05.2022.
Considering all the facts and circumstances and the
submissions made in revision petition, I am not inclined to set-aside the
impugned order dated 02.05.2022 passed by Ld. MM.
Accordingly, the present revision petition filed by revisionist i.e. Sh.
Tinku under section 397 r/w 399 Cr.PC against order dated 02.05.2022 is
dismissed.
The trial court record alongwith copy of this order be sent
back. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(Devender Kumar Jangala)
ASJ-05/PHC/NDD/ND
01.08.2022
-- 2 of 2 --