Delhi High Court
Mahender Singh Son Of Sh. Pratap Singh vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi Through ... on 3 December, 2007
Author: V.B. Gupta
Bench: V.B. Gupta
JUDGMENT V.B. Gupta, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an order dated 3.5.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and praying that respondent No. 1 be directed to register FIR against respondent Nos. 2 and 5 and investigate the case as per law.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Magistrate. In that complaint, he also filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
3. Vide order dated 27.2.2007, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC observing that the complainant himself was under the influence of liquor and was lying unconscious on the road which is contrary to the averments made by the complainant in his complaint as per DD No. 21 and 24A made by him regarding the alleged incident. The learned Magistrate also held, that on the perusal of statement of one Mr. Vinod Kumar, it seems that no such incident as alleged by the complainant has taken place and on the basis of material available on record, he was not inclined to direct the police to register FIR. However, the Magistrate adjourned the matter for complainant evidence.
4. The petitioner filed a criminal revision against the order of the Magistrate and that criminal revision was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 3.5.2007. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge relied upon the decision of this Court in Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. v. State 2002 CRL L J NOC 333 (Delhi) in which it has been observed that:
Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power has to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order Under Section 156. But in a case, where Magistrate is of the view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken.
5. Learned Sessions Judge also held that the complainant was under the influence of liquor and was lying unconscious on the roadside and there is nothing on file to show that any custodial investigation is required in the present matter and the allegations made by the complainant are with respect to those facts which are within his knowledge and he can prove the same by leading evidence and as such the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
6. According to the petitioner's own case, the incident is of 1.1.2005 which is apparent from DD No. 21, as referred to by the learned Magistrate in his order. The complaint under Section 200 CrPC was filed by the petitioner on 5.8.2005, i.e., after about 8 months after the incident. There is nothing on record to show as to what prevented the complainant to approach the police during these eight months. Moreover, as per DD No. 21 dated 1.1.2005, the petitioner himself was under influence of liquor and was lying unconscious on the road. So as per this DD there is no allegation that the petitioner has been assaulted by respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
7. Under these circumstances, the Addl. Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner and I do not find any ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. The present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the costs with the trial court within one month from today, failing which the trial court shall recover the same in accordance with law.