Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State

Delhi High Court · 23 Aug 2013 · 2013:DHC:7830
J. R. Midha
CRL.REV.P. 487/2009
2013:DHC:7830
criminal appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging dismissal of a complaint, holding that the proper remedy is an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Full Text
Translation output
, 37 to 40 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 487/2009
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Petitioner
Through : Mr. Shirish Aggarwala and Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, AFP.
CRL.REV.P. 488/2009
VERSUS
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP.
Mr. G.L. Rawal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jayant, Adv. forR-2.
CRL.REV.P. 489/2009
2013:DHC:7830
VERSUS
CRL.REV.P. 490/2009
VERSUS
Mr. Manoj D. Taneja, Adv. forR-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
23.08.2013 L The petitioner has challenged the order dated IS''^ July, 2009 whereby the criminal complaint was dismissed.
ORDER

2. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the dismissal ofthe complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused and the remedy against such order is provided in Section 378(4) Cr.PC namely, application for leave to appeal to this Court. It is submitted that in view of the specific remedy in Cr.PC, this revision petition is not maintainable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC and under Section 401(5) Cr.PC, this Court can treat the revision as petition for leave to appeal.

4. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that this objection was taken at the very outset in the reply filed to the petition and till date neither any rejoinder has been filed nor any steps have been taken for conversion of the revision petition. It is further submitted that even on merits, no offence under Sections 172/174 IPG is made out as no notice was served on respondent no.2.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the revision petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.

AUGUST 23,2013 aj

1 I J.R. MIDHA, J