Mukesh Arneja v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

1. Exemption allowed subject tojust exceptions.

2. Application stands disposedof. CRL.M.C. 5238/2017

3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the District & Sesions Judge (North) Rohini Courts in Crl. Rev. P. No. 192/2017 whereby the District & Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and has further directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to act in accordance with law 2017:DHC:8290 in view of the status report dated 18.08.2017 filed in CS NO. 2925/2017.

4. Mr. Sanjay Suri learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and same has been passed solely on the basis of the status report dated 18.08.2017 without taking into account the law laid down by the- Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts; that the.District & Session Judge erred in passing the impugned order against the petitioner without giving any opportunity to the petitioner ofbeing heard which is in violation ofprinciple ofnatural justice and also with respect to right of accused in revision petition; that the petitioner in support ofhis aforesaid contention placed reliance on the case of Jagannath Verma Vs State of UP: AIR 2014 ALLAHBAD 214 and also on the case ofRaghu Raj Singh Rosh Vs. Shivam Promotors: (2009) 2 SCC 363.

5. Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for the State appeared ohadvance notice and submits that pursuant to the order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate has called for a detailed status report and fixed the matter for 19.12.2017; that no orders for registration of FIR against the petitioner has been passed by the District &Sessions Judge or the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate as such the grounds raised in the petition are premature.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available material on record.

7. The learned Trial court vide order dated 07.09.2017 passed the following order;- ''In view ofthe observations made in Gulab Chand's case (supra), the request to refer the matterfor investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is declined. Despite dismissal of prayer u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C., this courtfeels that complainant is not withoutjural succor, therefore, he has to be given an opportunity to prove his case. Let complainant examine himself and his witnesses u/s 200 Cr. P.C. Put up this matter for pre-summoning evidence on 21.11.2017.''''

8. The complainant challenged the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the trial court and raised the grounds that dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. without looking into status report dated 18.08.2017 and proceeding for examination of witnesses of complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C. in the absence ofany complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. is perverse and illegal. The District &Sessions Judge after going through the records passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2017, relevant portion of which reads as under:- Submissions made by Ld. Counsel for revisionist are born out ofthestatus report dated 18.08.2017. I have no hitch to observe that in view ofthe status report dated 18.08.2017 dismissal ofthe application u/s 156(3) by Ld. M.M. was not calledfor Ld M.M. in view ofthe status report should have waitedfor the copy ofFIR and should not have dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. I have no hesitation to observe that there has been manifest non application ofmind. In view of the fact that there is no application of mind by Ld. M.M. order dated 07.09.2017 is set aside and Id. M. M. is directed to act in accordance with law in view of the status report dated 18.08.2017. With these observations, revision petition is disposed of accordingly."

9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 transpires that the Ld. District & Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned order after appreciating all the relevant facts and law relevant for the present case and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.:(2015) 6 SCC 287 while prescribing the procedure to be followed by the Magistrates under Section 156(3), the Apex Court observed as under;- ''24. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions withoutproper application ofmind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accusedpersons are serving in high positions in the bank. We are absolutely conscious that theposition does not matter,for nobody is above law. But, the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out"

10. Keeping in view of the decision of the Apex Court as well as taking into consideration the fact that the trial court has already called for a detailed status report, it is deemed appropriate to modify the order dated 21.11.2017 to the extent that the trial court shall keep in mind the status report dated 18.08.2017 as well as the fresh status report to be filed by the State on 19.12.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. -

11. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. CrI.M.A.20577/2017 (Stay)

12. In view of the. aforementioned order, the present application is rendered infructuous.

13. Application stands disposed of. Copy of the order be given Dasti, SANGITA^INGM SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 13, 2017