JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

CRL. M.A. 4555/2020

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL. M.C. 1167/2020

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed by Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. ASJ, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 119/2019 titled as "Satish Kumar Vs. State & Anr." and to direct the respondent to register the FIR against the accused persons in appropriate Section of IPC and Information Technology Act-2000.

2. The petitioner herein had instituted a criminal complaint (CC No. 4002/18) against one Khushboo Singh and Abhishek Chauhan (proposed accused persons) in the Court of Ld. ACMM (E) alleging that Khushboo Singh was her Ex-employee and Abhishek Chauhan is her husband. It is alleged by the complainant (petitioner herein) that both the said proposed accused persons have firstly defrauded him and then with the intention of defaming him have committed cyber crime by transmitting his private conversation with his girl friend to his relatives. The complaint was accompanied by an application seeking directions to the police U/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to register a case and investigate the matter. The Ld. ACMM (E) vide his order dated 17.05.2019 however, declined the said prayer but granted liberty to the complainant (petitioner herein) to lead positive evidence to prove his case and held that if need arises, an inquiry U/s 202 Cr.P.C may be conducted and posted the matter for such purposes.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and questioned the correctness, legality and proprietary of the said order. But his criminal revision petition bearing No. 119/2019 was dismissed by the Ld. A.S.J. vide impugned order dated 18.01.2020 which is now challenged by the petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C.

4. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the proposed accused have hacked the email-ID of the petitioner/complainant and have stolen the customers list of the petitioner. He further argued that investigation in the matter is required to be conducted by the IT expert team of the police to substantiate the allegations of the petitioner.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that at the outset the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner cannot be permitted to file a second revision petition in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the power U/s 482 Cr.P.C can only be exercised by the High Court in case there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure and sentence or order was not correct which is not so in the present case. It is further argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.01.2020. It is further argued that the petitioner can lead his evidence before the Magistrate Court in his complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C and in case during the course of the proceeding, the Magistrate deem it necessary, he can issue directions for further investigation by the police U/s 202 Cr.P.C.

6. Now a procedural issue has arisen, as to whether the petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse to section 482 Cr.P.C as a substitute for virtually initiating a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred U/s 397 (3) Cr.P.C which reads as follows :

"(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."

7. In Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522, the Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241 held that :

“...though the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and