Full Text
Translation output
90# $,..,- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2704/2011
/o ALEEMUDDIN ..... Petitioner
CRL.M.C. 2704/2011
/o ALEEMUDDIN ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Aziz-Ul-Hasan and Mr. Sanjeev Sarkar, Advocates~
PREM KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS , ..... Respondents
PREM KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS , ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Anupam Bhushan, PS Lajpat Nagar.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
17.08.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 9646/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. No. 2704/2011 By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate whereby his application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. was declined and the complaint was proceeded as a complaint case.
Against the said order the Petitioner also filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also declined finding no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
I have also perused the impugned orders and find no illegality in the
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
17.08.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 9646/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. No. 2704/2011 By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate whereby his application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. was declined and the complaint was proceeded as a complaint case.
Against the said order the Petitioner also filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also declined finding no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
I have also perused the impugned orders and find no illegality in the
CRL.M.C. 2704/2011
2011:DHC:9297 same much less any abuse of the process of Court having been committed warranting interference ofthis Court.
Briefly the case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner purchased gold jewellary from Respondent No. 1 and when he got the jewellary checked from Multani Insta Gold Check he found the gold jewellary to be less in purity. In view of this finding the Petitioner prayed that an FIR to be registered. Despite a complaint being given to the police no FIR was registered and thus he.filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court. Before dismissing the application of the Petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned
Trial Court had also called for a status report ofpreliminary inquiry from the police which ran counter to the version of the Complainant. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate further came to the conclusion that the dispute relates to the jeweller and his customer. As per the police report the
Complainant was billed for non-hallmark jewellary only which was of 17 to
18 carat whereas the Petitioner claimed that it was 22 carat and thus
Respondent No. 1 has cheated him. The learned Trial Court concluded that the entire evidence was in possession of the Petitioner and no investigation thereon was required to be conducted.
CRL.M.C. 2704/2011 Page 2 of3
..
The finding of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that all facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the Complainant, identity of the accused is well established, the evidence is also essentially within the possession and reach of the Complainant and thus neither any custodial nor police investigation is required is an appropriate finding and warrants no interference.
The present petition is dismissed.
"\..,__/ AUGUST 17, 2011 'vn'
•
2011:DHC:9297 same much less any abuse of the process of Court having been committed warranting interference ofthis Court.
Briefly the case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner purchased gold jewellary from Respondent No. 1 and when he got the jewellary checked from Multani Insta Gold Check he found the gold jewellary to be less in purity. In view of this finding the Petitioner prayed that an FIR to be registered. Despite a complaint being given to the police no FIR was registered and thus he.filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court. Before dismissing the application of the Petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned
Trial Court had also called for a status report ofpreliminary inquiry from the police which ran counter to the version of the Complainant. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate further came to the conclusion that the dispute relates to the jeweller and his customer. As per the police report the
Complainant was billed for non-hallmark jewellary only which was of 17 to
18 carat whereas the Petitioner claimed that it was 22 carat and thus
Respondent No. 1 has cheated him. The learned Trial Court concluded that the entire evidence was in possession of the Petitioner and no investigation thereon was required to be conducted.
CRL.M.C. 2704/2011 Page 2 of3
..
The finding of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that all facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the Complainant, identity of the accused is well established, the evidence is also essentially within the possession and reach of the Complainant and thus neither any custodial nor police investigation is required is an appropriate finding and warrants no interference.
The present petition is dismissed.
"\..,__/ AUGUST 17, 2011 'vn'
•
CRL.M.C. 2704/2011 Page3 of3
JUDGMENT