- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 26th November, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA.No.53/2014 under Section 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 10th July, 2014 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Court in CC No. 132/7 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
(2.) I have heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and have also gone through the impugned orders dated 26th November, 2014 and 10th July, 2014. The relevant extract of the order dated 10th July, 2014 is reproduced as under: " In ATR IO disclosed that accused no.1 is wife of complainant as they got married in District Solan in Himachal Pradesh. IO also produced a certificate issued by Sanatan Dharam Sabha Solan certifying the marriage of complainant with accused. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that no marriage ever took place and the certificate is false. However, in the documents annexed by the complainant in his complaint there is admission of complainant the accused no.1 is his wife. These documents were prepared in presence of complainant and all those documents in which accused no.1 is claiming herself to be wife of accused, are witnessed by the complainant himself. Ld. Counsel for complainant would submit that the complainant had no option but to prepare those documents as he was called in Panchkula and he was alone and under fear and pressure. Further he was expecting some benefit to come from those documents, but nothing happened. The documents in Panchkula were executed in February 2013 but the complaint to police was made in the month of August 2013. Had there been any pressure at the time of execution of documents in Panchkula, he was free when he came to Delhi but no step was taken for about 6 months. Under these circumstances, and for the fact that all the accused are known to the complainant and no recover or discovery has to be effected, the alleged transactions of giving money was through banks of which complainant himself has record, I do not find any reason to order for investigation. Hence, the application u/s 156(3) CrPC is declined "
(3.) The above said order of the trial court was challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Court who has confirmed the order of the trial court by dismissing the revision petition by order dated 26th November, 2014 on the following grounds:- "7. The ld. Trial Court had merely dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) CrPC of the revisionist, but has permitted the revisionist to lead pre summoning evidence in his complaint u/s 200 CrPC. If after leading evidence, any cognizable offence is found to have been committed, the ld. Trial Court would certainly summon the respondents no.1 to 3. The powers u/s 156 (3) CrPC are discretionary and it was for the revisionist to satisfy the ld. Trial Court that the evidence to be produced is not within his domain or control and field investigation by the police is necessary. There appears to be no need for field investigation by the police for collection of evidence. The names of the respondents no.1 to 3, the entire facts and the proposed evidence is within the domain and control of the revisionist. Once it was so, it was not obligatory for the ld. Trial Court to order for direction of registration of FIR. Further the ld. Trial Court after culmination of pre summoning evidence, can very well hold an enquiry itself or direct an investigation to be made, if needed by police, as per the provision of Section 202 CrPC, before passing the order on the point of summoning and the revisionist can also move appropriate application before the said court in this regard. No illegality, impropriety or perversity is found in the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court. The ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion u/s 156(3) CrPC in a judicious manner and it cannot be said that the said exercise was arbitrary or without application of mind. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present revision petition is dismissed.";