Delhi District Court
Ms. Farheen Khan vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 26 November, 2018
Criminal Revision No.161/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 161/2018
Under Section : 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C
CC No. : 3559/2017
PS : Jagatpuri
CNR No. : DLET01-005593-2018
In the matter of :-
MS. FARHEEN KHAN
D/o. Sh. Sharif Khan,
R/o. 107/3, Ground Floor, Khureji Khas,
Delhi-110051. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. SH. ANJAAR (Bhure)
S/o. Sh. Zaheer Ahmed,
R/o.107/2, Ground Floor, Khureji Khas,
Delhi-110051.
3. SMT. SHAHANA
W/o. Sh. Anjaar,
R/o.107/2, Ground Floor, Khureji Khas,
Delhi-110051.
4. SH. CHAAND
S/o. Sh. Anjaar,
R/o.107/2, Ground Floor, Khureji Khas,
Delhi-110051. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 21.08.2018
Date of reserving order : 20.11.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.11.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 1 of 6 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.161/2018
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 05.01.2018, passed by the trial court in the complaint case titled as Farheen Khan v. Anjaar (Bhure) & Ors., bearing CC No.3559/2017, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order, trial court dismissed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, which was moved by petitioner herein.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that petitioner herein Ms. Farheen Khan filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before trial court against accused Sh. Anjaar, Smt. Sahana and Sh. Chaand. In her complaint, complainant alleged that the named accused persons were having civil dispute with father of complainant and civil suit was pending in the court. They used to fight with the complainant and her family. Accused Shahana had also made false police complaint against father of complainant and her family members. For such reasons, brother of complainant was mentally disturbed. On 11.08.2017 at about 01:30 AM, local police asked complainant to remove her kitchen items. On 14.09.2017 at about 12:30 PM accused Anjaar and Shahana forcefully entered in the premises of complainant during absence of father of complainant. They started fighting with family members of complainant and damaged household articles. The incident was reported to local police, but no action was taken.
3. On 16.09.2017, once again father and brother of complainant were not at home and at that time, all three accused persons again forcefully entered into the premises of complainant and gave Page 2 of 6 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.161/2018 beatings to complainant and her sisters Nazis as well as Yasmin. They also assaulted mother of complainant with iron rod. Sister of complainant took complainant to LBS hospital and complainant was thereafter, referred to GTB hospital, Delhi for further treatment. MLC was obtained. Complaint was made to local police, but once again no action was taken by police. A video of incident was also prepared on mobile phone. Finally, this complaint was made before ld. MM for offence under Section 323/324/325/354/308/34 IPC.
4. During the course of hearing, after hearing arguments trial court vide impugned order dismissed that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
GROUNDS :-
5. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, petitioner herein has filed this revision petition mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That trial court failed to appreciate that petitioner had referred to decision of constitution bench of Supreme court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. AIR 2014 SC 187.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the fact that police of PS Jagatpuri, Delhi had miserably failed to fulfill their duties by not registering the FIR, inspite of cognizable offence. ATR was not mandatory, rather under the garb of ATR, investigating officer was allowed to conduct full scaled investigation in the camouflage of preliminary enquiry.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the identity of a person, who conspired with petitioner and her family members. Same required to be ascertained by police. Iron rod through which petitioner and Page 3 of 6 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.161/2018 her family members were assaulted and articles/weapons of offence used in the commission of offence, are also to be recovered from respondent nos. 2 to 4. Without registration of FIR, it is not possible.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the law laid down in Lalita Kumar (supra), Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P (2001) 2 SCC 628, Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2006) 2 SCC 677, Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its registrar (2011) 3 SCC 496, Laxmi Narayan Gupta & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, 130 (2006) DLT 490, Abhay Nath Dubey v. State, 99 (2002) DLT 114 (DB) and Amit Khera v. Govt. NCT of Delhi & Ors. 171 (2010) DLT
607.
● That trial court failed to appreciate that MLCs of the petitioner clearly show the nature of injury are grievous and clear head injury, which was required to refer to surgery. Till date, petitioner and his brother Mohseen are taking mental treatment due to said assault.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the conspiracy caused between the police of PS Jagatpuri and respondent nos.2 to 4, who failed to register FIR, inspite of incident/offences committed by respondent nos.2 to 4.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
6. Ld. counsel for petitioner made arguments on the lines of grounds taken in the petition and he also referred to medical documents of the Page 4 of 6 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.161/2018 petitioner. It was argued that petitioner had suffered serious head injury, due to which she had been treated in GTB hospital and thereafter, at IHBAS.
7. This court had also called for record from police station regarding the action taken by police on police complaint. It was recorded in the DD entry that all the injured had suffered simple injury and it was case of offence under Section 323 IPC. Hence, complainant was advised to approach the court.
8. As far as reliance upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) is concerned, it is suffice to say that this judgment was passed in respect of mandate of Section 154 Cr.P.C. However, the impugned order was passed on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and there are different guiding legal principles to exercise discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ld. MM has referred to such legal principles as explained by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Skipper Beverages v. State 2002 CR.L.J. NOC 333 Delhi. Even Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastav v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, observed that remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not of routine nature. Magistrate exercising said power must remain vigilant with regard to nature of allegations made in application and not to issue directions without proper application of mind.
9. Directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are to be given only, if Magistrate is satisfied that there is requirement of some investigation. In the present case, all the allegations have come from petitioner itself and such facts are within her personal knowledge. If for the Page 5 of 6 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.161/2018 sake of argument, it is assumed that a wrong opinion regarding nature of injury sustained by petitioner was given, still the facts regarding incident in question remain same and necessary evidence in the form of medical treatment record can be summoned by trial court to ascertain exact nature of injury. Though, it is matter of record that in the present proceedings, this court had given sufficient time to the petitioner to produce copy of any CT Scan as mentioned in the medical documents, but it was not so procured and produced. However, if such tests were conducted and a different kind of injury was found in the test report, same can be proved before the trial court. Therefore, the discretion exercised by trial court so as to decline any direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot be faulted with. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, petition is dismissed.
10.TCR be sent back along with copy of order to the trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court
PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.11.26
15:36:22 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 26.11.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 6 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 6 of 6 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi