What Is The Scope Of Scrutiny An Officer Is Required To Make While Clearing A Petition For Listing? Delhi High Court Asks Registrar To Clarify

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar (Listing) to clarify the scope of scrutiny required to be made by the scrutiny officer while clearing a petition for listing.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also asked the Registrar whether there are any general directions or judicial orders requiring the scrutiny officer to form a “prima- facie opinion” as to whether a prayer is maintainable before the court or not.

The court passed the order in a case filed by a 95-year-old man challenging the proceedings in a criminal complaint pending before the metropolitan magistrate. Pursuant to an order passed by the trial court, an FIR was registered in 2014 under sections 471, 420, 109, 506, 467, 120B, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner, former Secretary of Delhi Gandhi Samarak Nidhi, sought closure of the prosecution in the case, contending that it culminated in an undated closure report filed by the police recording that the matter was “mainly a property dispute, purely civil in nature and there is a long history of civil litigation in respect of property in question.” The petitioner’s counsel submitted that in September last year, the trial court directed further probe in the matter after the complainant filed a protest petition challenging the closure report.

On high court’s query as to why the order was not challenged in the petition, the petitioner’s counsel said that although a prayer to that effect was incorporated in the plea, the Registry put a specific objection asking the lawyer as to how the prayer was maintainable since the matter was seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Issuing notice in the matter, Justice Bhambhani directed the Registrar (Listing) to file a report on court’s queries before September 18, the next date of hearing.

The court also noted that the closure report filed by the police disclosed that a detailed investigation was conducted in the case and it was found that there was no material disclosing any criminality in the matter.

Noting petitioner’s old age and the fact that he was facing further investigation after the order passed by the magistrate last year, the court stayed the proceedings till the next date of hearing.

“In light of the above, on a prima-facie view of the matter, further investigation in the matter shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing before this court,” the court said.

It added: “Insofar as the proceedings in the protest petition are concerned, though the same may go on before the learned Magistrate, considering the petitioner’s age, his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate shall remain exempted, till the next date of hearing.”

Title: BALDEV RAJ KAMRAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Click Here To Read Order