The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to determine the expediency of holding an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C and the emphasis on avoiding the abuse of the process of the court.

JUDGMENT

asha Menon, J. - By this common judgment, three petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners, Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Smt. Kamlesh Gupta, shall be disposed of. The respondent No.1 is the State and respondent No.2 is alka Gupta.

2. The petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal cases filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2 being CC Nos. 18563/2018, 18564/2018 and 18565/2018, and the common order dated 13th March, 2020 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the revision petitions filed by the respondent No.2 being Criminal Revision Nos. 548/2019, 549/2019, and 550/2019 respectively.

3. Mr. Manish Vashisht, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the revision itself was not maintainable against the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27th July, 2019. It was his contention that under Section 341 Cr.P.C., only an appeal lay against an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that therefore, the revision itself had to be dismissed, however instead, it had been allowed and the matters remanded back to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Satish Tamta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, these pleas had neither been raised before the learned District & Sessions Judge, nor is there any pleading before this court to this effect that the revision was not maintainable, as only an appeal lies against an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Though, attention was drawn to a passing reference in the grounds that the order was not revisable, since, no such arguments were advanced before the learned District and Sessions Judge, therefore, this Court does not see any necessity to consider these pleas in the present cases and questions of law may be considered in other appropriate proceedings.

5. Since the prayers in the petitions are similar, the prayers as made in CRL.M.C. 2507/2020, are reproduced herein-below:

'a. Quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Ms ankita Lal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi bearing CC No. 18563 of2018, titled as "alka Gupta Vs Sanjay Gupta & anr" being application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. by Respondent No.2.

b. Setting aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 as passed by the Court of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Learned District & Sessions Judge New Delhi District, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.548/2019 titled as "alka Gupta Vs Sanjay Gupta".

c. Call for the records of the case including the records of the complaint cases under section 340 CrPC bearing C.C. No. 18563/2018 titled as "alka Gupta Vs Sanjay Gupta & anr" & C.C. No. 4615/2017 titled as "Sanjay Gupta & anr Vs alka Gupta" pending before the Court of Ms ankita Lal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

d. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'

6. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has been making several attempts at wriggling out of a Family Settlement, to which, her husband (since expired) was a party. It was submitted that originally, Sh. Rajiv Gupta (late husband of respondent No.2), had instituted a partition suit being CS (OS) 1968/2003, claiming to have had a share in the properties described in Schedule a to the plaint (annexure P-2 to the petitions), including the property being Plot no. 47, amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi, measuring 500 sq. yards, which was owned by 9 family-owned companies, namely Tanvi Trading & Credits Pvt. Ltd., Wesman Finances Limited, Swift Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Sampat Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Regency Exports Pvt. Ltd., Infinite Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Eminent Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Bhishma Exports Pvt. Ltd., and anchal Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

7. The suit was decreed on 9th