The nature of the offence should be decided based on the charge sheet/final report filed by the investigating agency, not by the order of the Court taking cognisance thereof.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the setting aside of orders dated 09.01.2013 and 10.05.2016 passed by the learned ASJ, and the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned MM, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 256 Cr PC was dismissed. Though the writ petition in its title invokes Article 226 with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upon an objection being raised by the respondent that a writ petition under Article 226 would not lie to assail a judicial order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition may be treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, namely, under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The factual background, as extracted by the learned ASJ-04 and Spl Judge (NDPS) South East, Saket Courts, Delhi in the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 passed in Crl. Revision No.148/2015 titled, “Vijay Kumar Bansal & Pradeep Kumar Bansal v. State” is as follows:-

a. Complainant Smt. Kalpana Bhattacharya was employed as a Music Teacher in MCD Primary School, Kailash Colony and was engaged in the Census Program conducted by Government of India and was performing her Census Duty in Greater Kailash-I area, when on 23.05.2010, at around 10:30 AM, the petitioners, who were residing at E/348A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi not only obstructed her in discharge of her Government Duties, but also assaulted her, caused injuries and also made an attempt to insult her modesty.

b. Upon a written complaint made by the complainant in this regard, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners and charge sheet was filed against them by the IO for the aforesaid offences. However, vide order dated 01.12.2010, the Court was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners only for an offence u/s 186 Cr.PC and they were summoned to face trial for 26.02.2011.

c. On two applications filed by the petitioners on 04.10.2012, u/s 468 and Section 256 Cr.PC, Sh. Amitabh Rawat, the then Ld. MM summoned the IO of this case. Vide his order dated 06.11.2012, the then Ld. MM dismissed the said applications moved by the petitioners, holding that an express cognizance taken by his predecessor in interest, for an offence u/s 186 IPC, necessarily included an implied cognizance of the remaining offences as well.

d. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by way of revision petition bearing no. 210/2012, which was decided by the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, the then Ld. ASJ, Saket, whereby Ld. Sessions Court held that there was no concept of any implied cognizance recognized under Cr.PC. He allowed the revision and the impugned order was set aside.

e. The learned ASJ held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court to pass a fresh order on cognisance, and to proceed in accordance with law.

3. Pertinently, this order of the learned ASJ dated 09.01.2013 (which is also one of the order assailed in the present petition) was accepted by the petitioners inasmuch, as, they did not challenge the same and chose to participate in the proceedings after the remand before the learned Magistrate. It is also pertinent to note that after remand, the learned Magistrate on 24.05.2014, dismissed the application under Section 256 Cr PC filed by the petitioners. At the same time, the learned Magistrate held that the case did not fall within her jurisdiction.

4. This order was again challenged by the petitioners by way of a revision. The learned ASJ decided the same vide order dated 22.08.2014. The order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 24.05.2014 was set aside. The learned ASJ held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was non-speaking and cryptic in nature. Once she had held that she had no jurisdiction to try the case, she could not have gone into the merits of the petitioners applications.

5. The learned ASJ directed that the several applicat