Ishwar Singh Chauhan v. State

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 20.I[2].2010 passed by Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna, Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl. Revision No.64/20t0, upholding the order dated L[1].07.2008 passed by Sh. Rakesh Pandit, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in FIR No. 445197 and consequent charge dated 22.08.2008 framed against the present petitioner.

2. The second prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the proceedings in respect of the aforesaid FIR which are pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 445/97 was registered on 24.06.1997 under Section 420,468,47L,448, 1208 IPC on the complaint of one S. Kumar, Director of Network Property Pvt. Ltd. with P.S., Kalkaji. It was alleged in the said complaint that they had purchased a DDA Janta flat no. 6 in Block J-3, Kalbasi on NEW DELHI..... Petitioner..... Respondent Sharma, App for the o/o c 1'r, 2011:DHC:12619 \ ':Jl f 29.04.1994 from one Shri Jai Ram Das s/o Shri Satnam Dass, resident of House No. 1091, Faresh Khana, Delhi and were enjoying the peaceful possession of the said flat.

4. It was stated by them that two persons namely Mr. Bankey Ram Tomar and and I.S. Chauhan who are property Brokers by profession have joined together and are conspiring to sell the said flat on forged documents and fake possession letters. Mr. I.S. Chauhan had sold the above mentioned flat to one Sh. Rakesh Kapoor without any intimation to the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint an FIR under Section 420,468,47t,448, 1208 IPC was registered and after investigation the charge sheet was filed.

5. On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences u/s 420/468/47L/448/1208 IPC, against the accused persons and posted the matter for framing of the charge vide order dated 11.7.2008. The actual charges were framed vide order dated 22.08.2008. The petitioner is purported to have filed a revision petition bearing no. 64/2010 against the said order and it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.t[2].2010.

6. Still feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal of the revision petition the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. had beeh filed,:q ( t assailing the order of the learned Magistrate as well as of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution in support of its case has only produced the photocopy of the documents to show the ownership of the flat. It was contended since the view of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory has been..vi obtained only on the basis of the photocopy and the originals were not produced and were not filed in the court therefore, the offence under Section 420/468/47L/L2OB IPC is not made out. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in case titled Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors., JT 2OO[9] (11) SC 533 and Shashi Lata Khanna Vs. State of Delhi, 2OO[5] (121) DLT 522.

9. At this stage, meticulous examination of the evidence which is produced or likely to be produced cannot be done. Secondly, Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. lays down that a party who has filed a revision petition cannot file a second revision. The trial court in the instant case framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 420, 468, 47L, 120-8 IPC vide order dated Lt.7.2OOB. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had preferred a revision petition against the said order which was also dismissed on 20.L[2].2010. Once, the revision was dismissed it was not open to the petitioner to have filed a second revision in the High Court.

10. The present petition though filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filing of the second revision tantamounts to the same. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 CrP.C., i.e. the inherent power of the Court which is to be exercised when there is an abuse of the processes of law or any order required to be passed to secure the ends of justice. Merely, by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the framing of charge is in gross abuse of the processes of law or in any case the said order deserves to be recalled.

11. I accordingly hold that though the present Section 482 Cr.P.C. yet it tantamounts to second petition is under revision. For the T reasons mentioned above, the petition is misconceived and accordingly the same is dismissed. AL^-{ / v.K. sHALr,J SEPTEMBER L6t ?OLL b /f 'l