ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i). Pass necessary orders and directions, thereby quashing andsetting aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Cr. Case No. 7572/2020 titled „State vs. Satinder Singh Bhasin‟, whereby, the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable u/s 420/120B IPC;

(ii). Pass necessary orders and directions, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5127/2023 Page 1 of 12 by the court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in criminal revision having Cr. Rev. No. 179/2022 titled as „Satinder Singh Bhasin vs State of NCT of Delhi‟, whereby, the Ld. ASJ dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2021;

(iii). Pass any order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present case.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused submitted that the instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 23rd January, 2021 (hereinafter “1st impugned order”) passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Cr. Case No. 7572/2020 (“CMM” hereinafter) by virtue of which the learned CMM has taken the cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner herein and in pursuant thereto, has issued summons to the petitioner herein.

3. It is submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 23rd January, 2021, the petitioner herein had filed a revision petition bearing Cr. Rev. No. 179/2022, under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “ASJ”), thereby, seeking revision of the said impugned order. It is also submitted that the said revision petition was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 1st February, 2023 (hereinafter “2nd impugned order”). It is further submitted that both the orders, i.e., the 1st impugned order as well as the 2nd impugned order have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the captioned petition.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5127/2023 Page 2 of 12

4. It is submitted that while issuing the 1st impugned order, the learned CMM admittedly and clearly not applied the judicial mind and has further failed to mention the sections under which the petitioner/accused was summoned.

5. It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that while issuing summons and taking cognizance of an offence, the Court Concerned shall pass a reasoned order showing the judicial application of mind. However, in the present case, the learned CMM has passed a mechanical order without mentioning the reason and discussion on merits that led to the issuance of summons.

6. It is further submitted that the 1st impugned order was challenged by the petitioner herein by way of filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., and the learned ASJ dismissed the said revision application while erroneously holding that no infirmity or illegality is found in the first impugned order .

7. It is submitted that the learned ASJ has also wrongly observed that only pursuing the charge sheet by any Court for purpose of issuing of summon/taking cognizance is sufficient or satisfactory. It is submitted that the learned ASJ, whilst dismissing the revision application, held that the learned CMM has applied the judicial mind for passing the first impugned order wherein summons have been issued and cogniz