Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited (Irctc) @APPELLANT@Hash Mayuri Ben M. Chotai

The petitioners are facing prosecution in the criminal case pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West), it having been

registered on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of investigation into

FIR No. 301/2002 of police station Rajouri Garden involving offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On

14.07.2010, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had found a case made out for putting the petitioners on trial on the charge for offences

punishable under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC. Charges were framed on the same date and the plea of the petitioners was recorded. The

petitioners had challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the said order by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions under

Section 397 Cr.P.C. by presenting a revision petition (Crl.62/2015). The revision petition was dismissed by the Court of Sessions by its order dated

03.02.2018 which is sought to be assailed by the petition at hand presented under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Against the above backdrop a question arose as to whether the petitioners having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take

recourse of Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a substitute for bringing virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section

397 (3) Cr.P.C.

This Court in almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC

241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571 and

following similar view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99, in absence of a

special case being made out, has earlier declined to interfere by the ruling in Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &

Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed. As rightly observed by the

courts below. Â

The petition and the pending applications are dismissed.