1. On the criminal complaint (CC No. 523311/2016 - earlier no. CC no. 63/1C/2015) of the second respondent (complainant), the petitioner (along with certain others) has been summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate, by her order dated 18.01.2018, to appear as an accused and be answerable on accusations of complicity in certain acts statedly constituting offences punishable under Sections 197 and 198 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner had assailed the said summoning order in the court of Sessions by criminal revision no. 739/2018 but without success, his petition having been dismissed by its order dated 09.01.2019.

2. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) questioning the legality of the view taken by the courts below.

3. The background facts need to be taken note of, in brief. The controversy concerns property described as Duplex Dwelling Unit flat no. 10A, Prem Shanti Kunj, 2 Club Road, Delhi-110054. The said flat is part of a larger super-structure, it statedly comprising of four floors including basement and ground floor. The building plans in respect of the said super-structure were statedly sanctioned on 18.04.1990. The building was developed by the owners with the help of a construction company under collaboration agreement that was executed on 09.02.1991. Unauthorised construction on account of deviations were noted by the municipal authorities leading to show cause notice against demolition being issued on 20.08.1992 under Sections 343 and 344 (1) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act).

4. There was some move at the above stage to revoke the sanction of the building plans though, it is stated, the concerned authorities in the municipal corporation decided on 09.10.1992 to keep such move in abeyance. The application for revised building plans to be sanctioned was moved on 01.03.1993. In the wake of subsequent developments, the entire building was sealed and a demolition order was passed on 06.09.1993. The then owners of the super-structure moved yet another application for revised plans to be sanctioned with certain further modification, on 22.10.1993. The revised plans were rejected by the competent authority and directions were given for the property to be sealed. The appeal was filed against the sealing and rejection order which was allowed on 28.02.1997. Certain rectification was recorded as carried out in the basement where the deviations had been noted in 1997 and compounding fee paid by the erstwhile owners. On 29.04.1999, the petitioner, as the then junior engineer (building) in the concerned zonal office of the municipal corporation, prepared a report which was submitted before the competent authorities for issuance of completion certificate. On 04.06.1999, after the submission of the report by the petitioner, unauthorized construction in the shape of partition walls in the basement was again noted and this led to fresh sealing order on 19.06.2001.

5. While the above events concerning the unauthorised construction in the building were taking place, the building being then sealed, the second respondent (complainant) purchased the subject portion of the property in question on 27.02.2002. The sealing order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal for Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD) on 11.03.2002 and the matter was remanded to the municipal authority for further consideration. It appears that in March, 2002, the proceedings at that end were closed on some undertaking being offered. However, later the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Line zone) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi passed a sealing order on 15.12.2003 under Section 345-A of DMC Act on account of unauthorised construction of partition walls in the basement, this in addition to a demolition order that had been passed on 07.10.2003. The sealing order, and the demolition or