The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of procedural and jurisdictional provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as the legal principles established in various judgments, in reaching the decision.

1. The petitioner had approached the Metropolitan Magistrate with a complaint (CC-99/01/14) invoking the jurisdiction of the said court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Section 156 (3) Cr. PC to seek initiation of action against the first to fourth respondents herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 166A, 177, 181, 182, 187, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 211, 209, 210, 219, 465, 466, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by them. His said complaint and prayer under Section 156(3) Cr. PC were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 05.11.2014. He challenged the said order before the court of Sessions by criminal revision petition (no.98/14) invoking its jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. PC. The revision petition was dismissed by the court of Sessions by order dated 07.01.2015.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this court by the petition at hand invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC to assail the orders of the two courts below.

3. The name of the petitioner had figured in the investigation into FIR no.69/2007 of police station Special Cell of Delhi Police involving offences punishable under Sections 384, 387, 506, 34 of IPC. The said case was registered on 30.08.2007, on the complaint dated 29.08.2007 of Sudhir Singh, a resident of Varanasi, UP wherein he had alleged having received threatening telephone calls from two persons named Brijesh Singh and Tribhuvan Singh demanding Rs.50 Lakh to be paid to the petitioner herein and Rs.25 Lakh to be paid to one Sanjay and further for an affidavit in murder case of one Gajender Singh to be filed and his coal business to be shut down. It is stated that on the application of the investigating agency, non-bailable warrants against the petitioner were issued (assumably because he could not be found), it being followed up by initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr. PC.

4. The petitioner has described himself to be an ordinary resident of the area of police station Kotwali in District Bhagalpur, Bihar. He claims to have learnt about the initiation of action under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. PC against him in the said FIR upon inquiries being conducted by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Bihar regarding immovable property held in his name. He filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC (Crl. M.C. 787/12) against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (in revisional jurisdiction) leading to the duress process being issued against him. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 21.03.2012. He took the matter to the Supreme Court by SLP (Crl.) 4538-39/2013 but the same was withdrawn and dismissed accordingly on 13.03.2013.

5. In the criminal complaint from which the present proceedings arise, it is alleged that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in case FIR 69/2007 of police station Special Cell, no evidence having come up to connect him with the crimes alleged therein. This plea cannot be commented upon in present proceedings since the case in question is pending trial.

6. The first respondent is described as the investigating officer of the said case (FIR no.69/2007), he being a member of Delhi Police holding the rank of Sub-Inspector, posted at the relevant point of time in police station Special Cell, the duress process having been issued at his instance. It is stated that the second respondent, a Head Constable in Delhi Police assisting the investigating officer of the aforementioned case had made a false report and statement vis-a-vis the publication or execution of the processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. PC, which had been issued. It appears for purposes of the publication and execution of the said processes, the second respondent had purportedly gone to District Bhagalpur, Bihar and in such context reference has been made to station diary no.3, recorded at 7.30 a.m. on 30.12.2010 in the p