The judgment clarified the limitations of the criminal court's power of review and highlighted the process for taking cognizance and conducting preliminary inquiry under Sections 200-202 Cr. PC.

1. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint (CC no.53/11) alleging offences punishable under Sections 166, 176, 379, 427, 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed by the first to seventh respondents. The allegations, in a nutshell, were that he is the registered owner of a bus bearing registration no.DL-1PB 3581 (bus) which had been illegally impounded on 11.01.2011 from the area of Bihari Colony Bus Stand by the first and third respondents even though the petitioner had due authorization to park the vehicle on the roadside, he having paid the municipal charges (parking fee). He alleged that the manner in which the vehicle was taken to the traffic circle had resulted in wrongful loss on account of damage suffered. He alleges that in-spite of the complaint made to the superior authority i.e. the other respondents, no action was taken. Reference is also made to a prayer made by him initially before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic) for an inventory of the articles illegally removed from the bus to cause wrongful loss to him, orders passed thereupon having been taken to this court through Crl. M.C. 4121/2011 which was decided by a learned single Judge of this court by order dated 12.12.2011 with some directions.

2. Be that as it may, the petitioner had made a prayer before the Metropolitan Magistrate for a direction to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC). The said prayer was declined by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara (CMM) by his order dated 05.08.2013, whereby the case was listed for a later date for consideration of the matter for taking of cognizance.

3. The order dated 05.08.2013 of the CMM, Shahdara was challenged in the court of the Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction (by CR no. 98/2013). The revisional court upheld the view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition though observing that the option for appropriate directions to be given in future was being kept open. The orders dated 05.08.2013 of the Metropolitan Magistrate and 11.10.2013 of the revisional court were assailed before this court by Crl.M.C. 573/2014. A learned single Judge of this court dismissed the said petition by order dated 04.02.2014, the relevant part whereof reads thus :-

“…Both the courts below have given the liberty to petitioner-complainant to file fresh application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. in future. Such a course has been adopted as, at this stage, it appears that the evidence sought to be led is within the reach of petitioner-complainant.

Finding no palpable error in the impugned order of 11th October, 2013 and trial court’s order of 5th August, 2013, this petition and the application are accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if petitioner is not able to effectively collect the evidence, then he would be at liberty to file similar application before the court concerned.”

4. In the wake of the dismissal of the Crl. MC 573/2014, the petitioner moved another application under Section 156(3) Cr. PC before the CMM, Shahdara. It appears that, in the meanwhile, there had been a change in the presiding officer of the said court. The new Judicial Officer working as CMM, Shahdara, initially had some doubts as to the maintainability of the second application under Section 156(3) Cr. PC. Nonetheless, by her order dated 16.12.2015, she granted the said direction instructing the Station House Officer of police station Vivek Vihar to register an FIR against unknown persons and report the matter by the date fixed.

5. The order dated 16.12.2015 of the CMM, Shahdara was assailed by the first respondent by Crl. Revision No.94/2016. The Additional Sessions Judge sitting in revisional jurisdiction, by his order dated 04.03.2016, found substance in the objection. He set aside the last said order of the CMM observing, inter alia, that the law would not permit review of the previous order dated 05.08.2013 and refe