Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl. M.C.) No. 2565/2013, preferred by the petitioner Zee News Ltd. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 04.05.2013 passed by Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, learned ASJ-01, New Delhi dismissing the revision petition bearing CR No. 62/13 filed by the petitioner herein.

2. Criminal Transfer Petition 45/2014, under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the petitioner Sudhir Chaudhary to seek transfer of CC No. 81/02 of 2013 titled as “State v. Samir Ahluwalia and Ors.”, filed in relation to FIR 240/2012 registered at P.S. Crime Branch, Distt. Crime & Railway, and CC No. 14/1/13 titled as “M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Zee News Limited and Ors.”, pending in different courts, to be assigned to one and the same court.

3. The background in which Cr.M.C. 2565/13 is preferred is that respondent no. 2 M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against 14 accused persons – including the petitioner-M/s Zee News Ltd., alleging commission of offences under Section 500, 501 and 506 IPC read with Section 34/120B IPC, which was initially registered as Complaint Case no. 82/1/12. The same stands re-numbered as CC No.14/1/13. While the said complaint was still at the stage of recording the pre-summoning evidence in the Court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, M.M., an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 210 Cr.P.C. on the ground that in respect of the same allegations – which is the subject matter of the said complaint case, FIR No. 240/2012, P.S. Crime Branch is already pending investigation. The petitioner claimed that the subject matter of both the cases viz. the complaint case and the FIR are the same. Initially, the said application was not taken up for consideration by the learned M.M. on 16.01.2013, and the recording of pre-summoning evidence continued. A criminal Revision being Cr.Rev. No. 16/13 was preferred by the petitioner Zee News Ltd. in the Court of learned ASJ in respect of the order dated 16.01.2013, and vide order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the learned ASJ, the learned M.M. was directed to dispose of application seeking stay, before proceeding in the matter. On 25.02.2013, the application for stay under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned M.M. on the ground that the said application was premature, as the accused in the complaint case had not even bee summoned, and thus they had no right to be heard even on an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Nagawwa v. Veeranna & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1947. The Criminal Revision Petition to assail that order was also dismissed by the learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2013. The learned ASJ relied on Chandra Deo v. Prokash Chandra, 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 397, wherein the Supreme Court held that an accused person does not come into the picture till he is summoned, i.e. till process is issued. He may remain present only to remain informed of the progress of the case. The Magistrate cannot put questions to the witnesses, who appear at the pre-summoning stage at the instance of the accused. Reliance was also placed on, inter alia, Pal v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 123, wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that Section 210 Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where, having taken cognizance of an offence in respect of an offence in a complaint case, in a separate police investigation such person is again made an accused. The learned ASJ also returned a finding, though prima facie, that the nature of offences in the police case and the complaint case “are not congruent”.

4. The background facts in which the transfer petition has been preferred is as follows:

5. The petitioner Sudhir Chaudhary filed an application under Section 410 Cr.P.C. before the learned C.M.M. for withdrawing, transferring, clubbing and consolidating together both the cases, viz. CC no. 81/02 of 2013 titled “State v. Samir Ahluwalia and Ors.”