Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this Order, I shall dispose of Criminal Revision Petition which has been filed by the revisionist, challenging the impugned order dated   25.01.2016   whereby   Sh.   Ankit   Singhla,   Learned   Metropolitan Magistrate­03 has dismissed the criminal complaint of the revisionist u/s 203 Cr. PC except for the offence u/s 219 IPC.

2. Since   the   complaint   has   been   dismissed   u/s   203   Cr.   PC, therefore, Notice was issued to all the respondents, who were arrayed as proposed accused in the Criminal Complaint tilted as "Ashok Sikka vs A. K.   Nigam   and   others"   (CC   No.   21/1/13).   Notice   was   served   to   all   the respondents and respondents­A. K. Nigam (R­1), Naresh Kumar (R­2), S. K. Jha (R­3), A. K. Sharma (R­4), Manish Rastogi (R­5), R. P. Meena (R­

9. Thus,   the   revisionist/complainant   alleged   in   the   complaint that all the accused committed the offences punishable u/s 217, 218, 219, 341, 342, 379, 380,384, 427, 448, 452 and 120­B IPC. 

10. It   is   further   alleged   that   J.   S.   Yadav   (R­9)   had   filed   his affidavit   in   the   Delhi   High   Court   on   17.04.2012   in   Writ   Petition   No. 1558/2011wherein he falsely stated that the property in question was not protected   under   the   Delhi   Laws   (Special   Provisions)   Act   2006,   and thereby he committed the offence punishable u/s 219 IPC.

15. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed   by   Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   and   Revision   Petition therefore, should be dismissed.

16. On   behalf   of   revisionist,   who   has   also   filed   written submissions, it has been submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has   wrongly   held   that   cognizance   of   the   offences   u/s   166,   167, 341,342,427,448,217,218,379,417 and 384 IPC is barred by limitation. It was   submitted   that   Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   has   held   vide   the impugned order that Section 219 IPC is made out, but since this offence has   been   committed   beyond   his   territorial   jurisdiction,   he   cannot   take cognizance   of   the   same.   It   was   submitted   that   Learned   Metropolitan Magistrate   has   ignored   the   Section   468   (3)   Cr.   PC,   which  interalia provides that the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable   with   the   more   severe   punishment.   It   was   submitted   that Ashok Sikka vs A. K. Nigam & ors.                                                                                                             Page no.    10 of 22 punishment u/s 219 IPC is seven years, therefore, the limitation for three years will not be applicable and for the rest of the offences, therefore, Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   should   have   taken   the   cognizance   for other   offences   alongwith   Section   219   IPC.   It   was   also   submitted   that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offence under Section 219 IPC as well.  

26. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that affidavit, alleged  to be containing  false statement, was filed in the Hon'ble  High Court by J. S. Yadav (R­9), therefore, he has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This observation of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is confined to the commission of offence punishable u/s 219 IPC, which provides;  

Section   219   IPC:­  "Whoever,   being   a   public   servant,   corruptly   or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."