JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 16th July, 2020, passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), in Complaint Case No.06/2019. Directions for registration of FIR have also been sought.

2. Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner/Sherry George is the Director and authorized representative of the Indian Fitness Connect Pvt. Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. through one Jitendra Agnihotri (Chief Accountant of the said company) filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was numbered as CC No. 6589/2017, against the petitioner and other Directors of India Fitness Connect Pvt. Ltd. which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts.

3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the said complainant had sought to influence the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, as in the order dated 17th August 2017 it was so recorded. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter, since a grave offence had been committed i.e., the interference with the administration of justice, as well as an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 186 IPC and other penal provisions, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 15th February 2018 at Police Station Saket, but no FIR was registered, despite requests to superior police officers.

4. As a consequence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-01, Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi seeking registration of FIR against five named persons and other unknown persons. The learned Special Judge, however, dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 16th July 2020 holding that no investigations were warranted as the identity of the accused persons was well within the knowledge of the complainant and the assistance of the police was not required to collect evidence at that stage. Learned counsel insisted that since the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate had held that influence had been sought to be exerted through "unknown" persons, the identity of those unknown persons was required to be established, which only the police could do. Hence, it was submitted that this Court may issue directions for registration of a case.

5. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submitted that there was no merit in the present petition and that the same ought to be dismissed forthwith. Furthermore, the learned Special Judge had also granted an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence and therefore, no prejudice had been caused to her.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned APP for the State, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the present petition. The learned Special Judge was justified in disallowing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directing the registration of an FIR, as no police investigation was required in the matter. However, it is the view of this Court that the learned Special Judge erred in allowing the petitioner to lead evidence in the complaint filed by her.

7. The order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 17th August, 2017 before whom the complaint case against the petitioner was pending, is clearly a recusal order. The Supreme Court in Association and another vs. Union of India, 2016 5 (SCC) 1, while dealing with the issue of recusal had observed as under :

"A Judge may recuse at his own, from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. That would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified, must never to be acceded to. For that would give the impression that the Judge had been scared out of the case, just by the force of the objection....."

8. Taking a cue from these observations, it would be proper to hold that an investigation into the