The main legal point established in the judgment is that the learned ASJ had the power to remand the matter for further examination of witnesses, and the delay in filing the complaint was not fatal.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.

1. Petitioners have preferred the present revision petition against an impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-04 (hereinafter referred to as `ASJ'), District South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 892/2019. Vide the afore-said order, the learned ASJ had partly allowed the criminal revision petition against the order impugned therein dated 11.11.2019, passed by Shri Gagandeep Jindal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as MM), Saket Courts in CC No. 5661/2018, by which the complaint filed by the present respondent No.2 was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

1.1 Learned ASJ had directed the parties to appear before the learned MM, who was ordered to permit further examination of any other witness(s), if sought for by the complainant, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in view of the observation made in the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned ASJ.

1.2 Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioners have filed this criminal revision petition.

1.3 The case, in nutshell, of the petitioners is that the daughter of the petitioner No.1, namely Ms. Pavni Ahuja, got married to the son of respondent No.2, namely Mr. Amrinder Singh Sodhi, on 24.04.2011. Certain disputes arose between petitioners no.1's daughter and respondent no.2's son and Ms. Pavni Ahuja left her matrimonial home and started living at her parental home, where she died on 25.02.2015. It is a case of an unnatural death.

1.4 Petitioner No.1 reported the matter to the police and FIR No. 94/2015, Police Station: Greater Kailash under Section 498A, 304-B, 354A, 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered and during investigation respondent No.1, his wife and son were arrested and they remained in judicial custody for a long time. On 18.08.2015, they were granted regular bail by the District Court. The charges were framed against accused persons on 03.12.2015 under Sections 304B,498A & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

1.5 Respondent No.2 filed a revision petition challenging the order framing charge and the said petition was numbered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 248/2016. The other co-accused persons filed similar petitions. Later on the revision petition No.248/2016 was dismissed as withdrawn. In the criminal case from 2016 to 2020, about 18 witnesses were examined and cross-examined.

1.6 It is further stated that in the meantime on 27.06.2018, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint along with an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned M.M. claiming therein that he was earlier not aware about the circumstances leading to the death of Ms. Pavni Ahuja and certain lapses in investigation were pin-pointed. The present revision petitioners were arrayed as respondents/proposed accused. The said complaint was filed under Section 302, 201, 465, 467, 469, 471, 120 B and 34 IPC. This complaint was dismissed on 15.10.2018 along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

1.7 Being aggrieved, the present respondent No.2 filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 77/2018 before the Sessions Court and vide order dated 18.04.2019, the Sessions Court held that the complaint cannot be dismissed without undergoing the procedure of recording the complainant's evidence and therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Court of learned M.M. for recording of the same. Respondent No.2 examined himself as CW-1; Mr. Sunil Kumar-Ahlmad of the Court of Shri Sandeep Yadav, ASJ was examined as CW-2, who produced the record of certain documents filed in case FIR No. 94/2015; Dr. L.C. Gupta, Specialist Forensic Medicine and Toxicology-Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital Mortuary was examined as CW-3 in CC No. 5661/2018.

1.8 Learned Magistrate again rejected the complaint by a detailed order dated 11.11.2019. Respondent No.2, being aggrieved by passing of the order dated