High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./119/2015

Ajay Gaur v. Vijay Gaur & ORS

2015-01-14Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh2 pages

$-53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 119/2015 AJAY GAUR o .

Petitioner Through Mr.Amit Jain, Adv. with Mr.Sushendra K. Chauhan, Adv.

versus VIJAYGAUR&ORS Respondents Through None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

ORDER

14.01.2015 Crl. M.A. No.537/2015 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

Crl. M.C. No.ll9/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.53r;/7ni^ On the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the order dated 14" October, 2014 was passed by the learned MM directing the SHO to register FIR against respondents No.l & 2. The said order was challenged by respondents No.l & 2 in Criminal Revision No.21/2014. The said revision petition was allowed by order dated 5'" December, 2014. Relevant paras 14 & 15 of the said order read as under:-

14. In view of the foregoing discussion and facts and the circumstances of the case I am allowing the Revision Petition 1 ed and setting aside the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court By:AMULYA

whereby the directions had been given to the registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

15. Before, however, concluding this Order I would like to add here that the Ld. Trial Court may proceed with the complaint if it so considers appropriate, as a complaint case even in a case of non cognizable offence been committed may still be maintainable and may take a decision as to the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after such evidence as led by the complainant has been recorded."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandan Son ofAanganu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 17^*^ October, 2006. Having gone through the same, I am of the view that the facts in the present case are materially different. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

There is no merit m the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. JANUARY 14,2015/ka