The court established that the inquiry under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. requires a limited scrutiny for a prima facie case, and misapplication of this standard constitutes legal error.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 15.03.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, NDPS/South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in Crl. Rev.No.34/13 (Original Number 55/12), dismissing the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against order dated 22.06.2012, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner against the respondents for commission of the offences punishable under Section 379/355/406/420/499/500/506/120B/34 of IPC and under Sections 40/41 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short `the IT Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner started working in the year 2006 as Sales Manager-Software with the respondent No.1 company. In the year 2011, he was appointed as Sales Head on a monthly salary of Rs.1,32,620/-. According to him, neither he was paid salary w.e.f. April, 2011 nor any reasonable explanation was given to him, and on the contrary the respondents acted criminally against the petitioner. On 23.07.2011, the respondent No.4, who was the Director of the company vide e-mail dated 23.07.2011 had instructed respondent No.2 for clearing the dues of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached respondent No.2 on 27.07.2011, instead of clearing the dues, respondent No.2 assaulted him, tore petitioner's shirt's collar, attacked him by broken glass and also threatened to kill him. On 16.08.2011, the petitioner filed a complaint to the police about the incident dated 27.07.2011 and subsequent events. The police, however, on 02.09.2011 closed the enquiry. On 17.08.2011, the petitioner was sacked from the respondent company without any termination letter. On 18.08.2011, the respondent No.1 had served the petitioner a proposal for settlement of dues. On 01.09.2011, the petitioner had served a legal notice upon respondent No.1 to clear the dues of a sum of Rs.4,30,540/- towards the outstanding salary and allowances from April to August, 2011 and Rs.4,64,100/- towards leave encashment for 105 days upto 17.8.2011 and Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment. The petitioner also claimed a sum of Rs.9,30,495/- towards committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. On 01.09.2011, the respondent also sent a demand notice to the petitioner with intention to tarnish his image; calling him cheater, unsocial and absconder while spoiling his career. On 05.09.2011, the petitioner denied the contents and defamatory allegation of respondent in their demand notice dated 01.09.2011. Since the police also did not take any action, therefore, on 24.10.2011 the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent No.1 (through respondent Nos. 3 to 5) have committed the offence jointly and severally under Sections 355/406/420/499/500/120-B of IPC etc. On 16.01.2012, the learned MM declined to entertain application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to the petitioner to lead his pre-summoning evidence. On 22.06.2012, the learned MM after recording pre-summoning evidence of the petitioner, did not find any substance and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The order of dismissal of the complaint was assailed by the petitioner before the revisional court, however, the same has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 15.03.20