High Court dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition challenged the lower courts' refusal to direct police investigation and their decision to proceed with evidence recording. The Court held there was no perversity or illegalities.
The revision petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
SUNIL KUMAR SAXENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Shamikh, Adv.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO GNCT OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP for the State and SI Shantanu, PS Amar Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
when there is illegality or perversity of the Ld. Trial Court.
10. In V.K. Verma v. CBI CRL.REV.P. 830/2017 it has been inter alia held as under:
“66. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record.
67. Further, as per the settled position of law the jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases, only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, there is no such abuse of process or that the ends of justice warrant the exercise of the said jurisdiction, therefore there is no cogent reason warranting the exercise of the jurisdiction.”
11. In Sunil v. State CRL.REV.P 514/2022 it was inter alia held as under:
“7. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The Courts can exercise its revisional jurisdiction only if there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or an error apparent on the face of the record. In revisional jurisdiction, the Courts cannot substitute its opinion with that of the Courts below. Where two views are possible and the trial court has taken one view which is a plausible view, merely because another view is possible, the High Court should not interfere, and would be in error in interfering with the findings of the trial court in its revisional
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
jurisdiction. High Courts cannot reappraise evidence and come to a different conclusion. The revisional jurisdiction operates within narrow contours and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice so requires such an interference, to rectify a gross miscarriage of justice. In absence of any manifest error of law or procedural defects, the High Courts should refrain from interfering with the order of trial court in its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional court does not function as a court of appeal and the Court cannot reappreciate evidence. Revisional jurisdiction is normally exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact of the learned trial Court which have been arrived at after due consideration and appreciation of evidence and material on record.”
“17. In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the directions for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code cannot be given by the Magistrate mechanically. Such a direction can be given only on application of mind by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. Each case has to be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved therein. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police. In
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
the present case, all the facts and evidence are within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can adduce during the inquiry conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code.
18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no special case has been made out for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the approach adopted by the two courts below nor any such has been pointed by the petitioner.”
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence - (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.”
“(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
cannot be held to be illegal.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 10, 2024/AR..
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:30:31
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the lower court's order refusing to direct police investigation.
Whether the lower courts committed perversity or illegalities by proceeding with the recording of evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. instead of directing a police investigation.
Whether the refusal to register an FIR or direct investigation violates the mandate of Lalita Kumari in a private complaint scenario.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari vs. State of UPReferred¶20
Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
V.K. Verma v. CBIRelied on¶26
V.K. Verma v. CBI CRL.REV.P. 830/2017
Sunil v. StateRelied on¶29
Sunil v. State CRL.REV.P 514/2022
Anjuri Kumar v. State Govt. NCT of DelhiRelied on¶33
Anjuri Kumar v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi & ors. W.P.(CRL) 1210/2023
4 provisions across 1 enactments
SUNIL KUMAR SAXENA
STATE THROUGH SHO GNCT OF DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
