$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09^th July, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 5183/2024 SH. VARUN JAIN, ADVOCATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Gahlaut, Adv. through V.C.

versus AJAY KALSI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 19796/2024 (seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures, dim annexures and eligible copies of the annexures)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 5183/2024

3. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.06.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 03.06.2024’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (‘ASJ’), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 383/2022 titled Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5183/2024 Page 1 of 11 Varun Jain v. Ajay Kalsi & Anr., dismissing the said Revision Petition.

4. The said Revision Petition had been filed by the petitioner herein, challenging the order dated 27.09.2022 (hereafter ‘the impugned order dated 27.09.2022’) passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Ct. Case No. 573/2022, titled Varun Jain v. Ajay Kalsi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, while taking cognizance on the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC

5. The abovementioned complaint, that is Ct. No. 573/2022, was filed by the petitioner alleging therein that Respondent No. 2 had induced and allured the petitioner to purchase a Maruti Wagonr and had represented that the vehicle was in a good condition and had run only 72600 km approximately. It is alleged that based on the representation of Respondent No. 2, the petitioner purchased the said car from Respondent No. 1 on

18.08.2021 against payment of ₹1,88,000/.

6. It is alleged that pursuant to the purchase, the said car caused continuous complications and problems, and the petitioner had to spend ₹l,00,000/- on its repair. It is alleged that these complications were brought to the notice of Respondent No. 2, who allegedly assured that the car would be in perfect order if minor repairs were done.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5183/2024 Page 2 of 11

7. It is alleged that owing to the constant trouble caused by the car, the petitioner decided to purchase a new car. It is alleged that when the petitioner visited M/s. Magic Auto, Delhi for purchasing a new car, the True Value Consultant, on thoroughly checking the said car, stated that the car was allegedly serviced on 07.02.2021 at D.D. Motors, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, Delhi and at that time, the mileage/run of the said car was allegedly recorded as 190594 kilometres.

8. As noted above, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was dismissed by the learned MM by the impugned order dated 27.09.2022. The learned MM, while dismissing the said application, has observed as under :

“All the evidences in the present case are in the reach of complainant. Furthermore, from the facts of the case, it is evident that accused persons are already known to the complainant and the undersigned is of the opinion that the assistance of investigating agency is not required in the present case for the collection of evidence. Thus it does not appear to be a case where the police assistance is required for the purpose of collection of evidence and the complainant has summons the witnesses on his own. Accordingly, the present application u/s 156 (3) of Code of Criminal is dismissed. ln the facts of the present case, the undersigned deem it appropriate that the present application be treated as a complaint u/s 200 CrPC and the complainant be directed to prove the allegations made by him on the oath.”

9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned MM, the petitioner challenged the same by way of Criminal Revision, which has been dismissed by the learned ASJ