SURESH KAIT, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in relation to FIR No.345/2012 registered at Police Station Amar Colony, New Delhi, under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’).

2. Briefly stated, FIR in question was registered on a written compliant dated 22.09.2012 made by one B.K. Kapoor, who alleged that on 21.09.2012 at about 5.00 PM, the petitioner was putting flower pots and bricks on the road blocking the smooth flow of vehicles and when the complainant asked him not to so obstruct the road, petitioner started shouting at the complainant. When the complainant himself tried to clear the said obstructions from the road, the petitioner not only stopped him but also assaulted him causing injuries on his left arm and left hand. Thereafter, the complainant came to the Police Station and narrated the aforesaid incident. Accordingly, Sub-Inspector Prakash, Investigating Officer of the case, took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre and got his MLC bearing No.330978 done, wherein the nature of injuries was opined as ‘simple blunt’.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 323/341 IPC was filed on 21.11.2012.

4. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.03.2014, notice was framed under Section 323 IPC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, however, petitioner was discharged for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Criminal Revision No.14/2014. The arguments propounded were that since the charge sheet had been filed for a cognizable offence as also for a non- cognizable offence and the charge having been framed only for a non- cognizable offence, the trial stood vitiated as the prior permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C. to investigate a non-cognizable offence was not taken. The Revisional Court vide its order dated 08.07.2014 while disposing of the same, modified the order dated 15.03.2014 to the extent that offence under Section 341 IPC was also made out against the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has impugned the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that offence under Section 323 IPC is non-cognizable and no permission had been taken from the Magistrate for carrying out investigation into non-cognizable offence. He submitted that simply because the case was registered for the offences under Sections 323/341 IPC, which are non-cognizable and cognizable offences respectively, the police could not investigate the offence which actually fell under Section 323 IPC which is a non-cognizable offence.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the Revisional Court has over looked the principles that can be culled out from the decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to the scope and ambit of the powers in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. that powers of the Revisional Court are very limited and it does not function as a court of appeal and therefore, cannot re-appreciate the evidence.

8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of S. Ajit Singh Vs. The State(Delhi), 1990 (1) C.C. Cases 66 (HC), wherein this Court held as under:-

“4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and have given my careful consideration to all the circumstances involved in this petition. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the offence under Section 287 IPC was actually non-cognizable and therefore the police could not investigate this case without seeking permission of the learned Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of the Code