Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Vikram Bakshi Vs. State [Delhi High Court, 07-09-2017]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Power of High Court – If orders otherwise revisable under the Cr PC, are, pro tanto and by reason thereof, completely removed from the sphere of Section 482 thereof, Section 482 would be rendered invokable only in the case of “petty interlocutory orders”.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

07.09.2017

Crl.M.C. No. 2493/2017 VIKRAM BAKSHI …. Petitioner Through: Mr.Nikhil Ahuja, Ms.Rudrani Tyagi, Advs. Versus STATE & ANR ……Respondents Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP. Inspector Shambhu Nath, PS EOW Mr.Deepak Khosla, R-2 in person.

ORDER

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This order disposes of a preliminary objection, raised by respondent No.2 in the present proceedings, regarding the maintainability of this petition (Crl.M.C. 2493/2017) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Cr PC”).

2. Exhaustive arguments, by Ms Rebecca John and Mr Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the question of issuance of notice and grant of interim relief, in the present petition, were heard by me. Before they were completed, Mr Khosla (Mr. Deepak Khosla) raised a preliminary objection, to the effect that the present petition was not maintainable under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He also insisted that I pass an order on the said preliminary objection, before proceeding to hear the petitioner, further, on the question of issue of notice in the present petition. In support of the said request, Mr Khosla also sought to place reliance on various judicial authorities. Inasmuch as I am passing the present order, acceding to the said request made by Mr Khosla, it is not necessary to refer to the said decisions.

3. The petitioner, in the present petition, has assailed the order, dated 22nd June, 2017, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South) (hereinafter referred to as “the ACMM”) in Case No.5450/2017 (Deepak Khosla v. Vikram Bakshi & Anr.), which was an application filed by Mr Khosla under Section 94 of the Cr PC. By the impugned order, the ACMM has expressed his prima facie satisfaction that forged documents were lying at the addresses mentioned in the application filed by Mr Khosla and has, therefore, proceeded to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police of New Delhi, South East District, to conduct a search, for finding the said alleged documents, in terms of Section 94 of Cr PC., and file a report, alongwith the recovered documents, before the Court. The said directions, as contained in the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2017, read thus:-

“The Court is satisfied that there are prima facie reasons to believe that forged documents enumerated in table A of para 4 of the application may be lying at the addresses mentioned in para No.13 of the application. Accordingly, Dy. Commissioner of Police District New Delhi and South-East are directed to get a search, for finding the alleged documents enumerated in para No.4 of the application, conducted in terms of Section 94 Cr.P.C. and file a report along with the recovered documents in this Court expeditiously”.

4. Having been issued the said directions, the ACMM renotified the matter for 04th July 2017.

5. As the present order is limited to adjudicating on the preliminary objection, raised by Mr Khosla, regarding the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, I am not adverting to the detailed facts of the case. Suffice it to state that, by the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the aforementioned order dated 22nd June, 2017, passed by the learned ACMM, be set aside.