Full Judgment Text
$~14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Decided on:- 16 November, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4777/2016
ASHOK KAUSHIK .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Avinash Kumar Tyagi,
Advocate
versus
STATE (C.B.I.) .... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, SPP with
Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner herein is one of the several accused persons who
were sent up for trial by the respondent Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), on a report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted upon conclusion on
investigation into case (RC No.3/2012 ACU-VI/CBI) New Delhi. The
matter came up before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(ACMM) for consideration of charge. By order dated 06.01.2015, the
ACMM found sufficient material available on record to put, inter alia,
the petitioner herein on trial for offences punishable under Sections
120-B read with Section 419/420/384 Indian Penal Code (IPC), and
for the substantive offences under Section 420 IPC read with Section
Crl. M.C. No.4777/2016 Page 1 of 3
511 IPC, in the alternative for offence punishable under Section 384
IPC read with Section 511 IPC.
2. The petitioner challenged the said order before the court of
Sessions by criminal revision No.28/15 contending that there was no
evidence worth the name against him. The Sessions Court dismissed
the revision petition by its order dated 29.07.2016. Thereafter, the
petitioner has approached this court by the present petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. raising the same contention as above.
3. Against the above backdrop, question arose as to whether the
petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed
to have recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a
second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under
Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.
4. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the
decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni ,
( 1997 ) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and
Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr.,
(2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view taken by a learned
single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr.,
ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of a special case being made has
earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in
Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
Crl. M.C. No.4777/2016 Page 2 of 3
5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner made a feeble attempt to selectively read from the charge
sheet to submit that all that he is accused of is to make an attempt to
secure a loan against a property. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State pointed out that there is substantive evidence
available including in the form of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
of the witnesses including Akhilesh Chauhan, the intended victim,
confirming the case of the petitioner being party to the criminal
conspiracy alongwith others, which is sought to be corroborated,
amongst others, by intercepted telephonic conversation.
6. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed.
7. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 16, 2018
vk
Crl. M.C. No.4777/2016 Page 3 of 3