The central legal point established in the judgment is the cautious exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. and the need to prevent abuse of the process of court.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which the Criminal Revision No.09 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had rejected the application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. and declined to take cognizance of the offence of forgery against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein.

2. The gist of the facts of the present case are that on 08.12.2014 the petitioner had lodged an FIR No.532/2014 under Section 148/149/323/324/452 of IPC in Police Station Sonepat City (HR) against respondent No.2 to 5 and on the next day i.e. 09.12.2014 a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC was filed against the family of the petitioner. On 26.12.2014, another complaint before CAW Cell, Sector 3, Rohini was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Besides that, on 12.01.2015 respondent No. 2 had filed a case of maintenance in the Family Court of Rohini, wherein notice has been issued and duly received by the petitioner herein. It is found that the complaint dated 09.12.2014 annexed with the notice was having alteration with the word ‘Unhi” as “Humhi” and the same instigated the petitioner to file an application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 465/467/471/120-B/34 of IPC.

3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 05.02.2016 dismissed the application and declined to take cognizance on the complaint. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi, which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2016 and that’s why the petitioner has preferred the present petition invoking inherent discretion of this court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR registered on 08.12.2014 at the instance of petitioner and the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 to 5 under Section 498-A against the petitioner, the police has converted both the case into cross case and ultimately filed the final report. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was mandatory for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to direct the police to register an FIR where a cognizable offence was disclosed in the complaint. It is submitted that it is only during pendency of the complaint, the petitioner received notice of Domestic Violence from the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and after going through the notice, it came to notice that the respondents have used the forged FIR again. Thereafter, the petitioner and his son approached the DCP for registration of FIR but to no avail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly relied upon the judgment of Surjeet Singh vs. Balbir Singh and contended that when forgery has been committed on a document which is not in custodia legis, or are not the part of the court proceedings, then the bar mentioned under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr. P.C. does not apply. It is submitted that the time periods of the offences were different, therefore the idea of multiplicity of proceedings is highly unsustainable. It is further contended that when the FIR in Sonipat was registered, the maintenance petition was not filed and the Trial Court has wrongly held that all the material required is within the accessibility of the complainant. According to the petitioner, moot question which requires to be debated in the present case is not only the forgery or manipulation in the FIR but also to find out the person responsible for doing the same.

6. It is further contended on behalf of the petit