( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed on 25th February, 2006 which reads as under: nirmala DEVI V. BAL KISHAN SEWAK cc No. 9571/1 25. 02. 2006 pr : Complainant in person ld. APP for the State reply has filed by Ld. APP for the State along with certified copy of order dated 17. 9. 2005 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I have gone through the complaint and the reply the complainant has alleged the accused Bal Kishan Sewak had raped her on various occasions and on various dates. In the complaint she has narrated all the circumstances. In the reply it is stated that on the complaint of complainant some inquiries were made by dcp Public Public Grievances Cell and it was found that complainant herself was involved in a case. She has been defended by accused Bal Kishan Sewak as her advocate. During the inquiry, it was revealed that allegations are false. In view of complaint filed, it discloses commission of cognizable offences and requires through investigation. Therefore, SHO concerned is directed to register FIR and carry out the investigation. Put up on 29. 4. 2006 for status report. Sd/-MM, New Delhi/25. 2. 2006

( 2 ) A little background would be necessary to consider the issue raised in this writ petition. Complainant Smt. Nirmala Devi/respondent no. 2 had filed a writ petition before this Court seeking direction for registration of case on the basis of her complaint. During pendency of her Criminal Writ petition No. 264/05, this Court had called for Status Report from the police. SHO of the area sent a Status Report that the complaint of Nirmala Devi was enquired into by ACP Public Grievances Cell and it was found that she was arrested in case FIR No. 277/1997. She engaged Mr. Bal Kishan Sewak, the present petitioner, as her counsel to defend her and used to visit his chamber and house. Bal Kishan Sewak was also President of a Political Party viz. United citizen Party. Nirmala Devi lodged a complaint of her having been raped and sexually exploited by Bal Kishan Sewak. The complaint was enquired into by ACP public Grievances Cell. It was opined by ACP Public Grievances Cell that the complaint was lodged by Mrs. Nirmala Devi at the behest of Madan Lal Azad, Joint secretary of the party and it was a baseless complaint. In subsequent Status report SHO reported that Nirmala Devi had made complaints about her sexual exploitation and rape by Bal Kishan Sewak, Advocate to various authorities and an enquiry into the complaint was conducted and was found that her allegations could not be substantiated.

( 3 ) AFTER above report, the counsel for Nirmala Devi withdrew the writ petition no. 264/2005 on 19th September, 2005 with liberty to seek appropriate remedy available to him under law. After withdrawing this writ petition Nirmala Devi filed the criminal complaint before the learned metropolitan Magistrate and aforesaid order was passed by learned Metropolitan magistrate on the criminal complaint of Nirmala Devi.

( 4 ) THE validity of order is challenged on the ground that no such order could have been passed for registration of FIR because the order resulted in double jeopardy since the investigation has already been carried out into the allegations made by Nirmala Devi, once, on a complaint made to CAW Cell and also during the pendency of the writ petition when Status Report was called. The other ground for challenge is that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not competent to pass the impugned order since the offence complained of was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The trial court after receipt of Status report should have followed the procedure as contained in Section 202 Cr. P. C. and could not have passed the order of registration of FIR and investigation. It is also submitted that the respondent Nimala Devi had filed the complaint to extort/blackmail the petitioner and his family and withheld the true facts. She was a habitual offe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document