Delhi District Court
Usha Anand vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 March, 2024
Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 454/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-006490-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Usha Anand
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand
2. Meenakshi Anand
D/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand
Both R/o 15/51, Ground Floor,
Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060 ....Revisionists
VERSUS
1. The State
Through SHO, PS Paschim Vihar West
(Outer District) Mianwali Nagar,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087.
2. Nitin Anand
S/o Late Sh. Vinod Anand
R/o GH-9/233, Paschim Vihar,
Digitally
signed by
New Delhi-110087 VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30
14:39:31
+0530
CR No. 454/2023 Page No.1 of 43
Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
3. Renu Anand
W/o Late Sh. Rakesh Anand
4. Siddharth Anand
S/o Late Sh. Rakesh Anand
5. Vidhi Anand
D/o Late Sh. Rakesh Anand
Respondent No.3, 4 & 5 are R/o DG-2, 2D, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110018
6. Unknown involved officials of DDA
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 09/08/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 17/02/2024
Date of judgment : 30/03/2024
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionists against the order dated 14/07/2023 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:39:43 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.2 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
passed by Sh. Aakash Sharma, Ld. MM-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 24/2023, PS Paschim Vihar West, New Delhi titled as "Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors." thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the complainants (revisionists herein) was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionists have prayed to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 14/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to give direction to SHO, Paschim Vihar West to register the FIR against the accused persons and proceed against the accused in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the present revision petition has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 14/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionists was dismissed. The present revision petition raised the question of law that where the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences, whether registration of FIR is mandatory in view of Lalita Kumari's judgment and whether failure to direct registration of the FIR on the ground that scientific investigation is not needed, would run contrary to the Lalita Kumari judgment. Revisionist Usha Anand is the wife of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and revisionist Meenakshi Anand Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:39:54 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.3 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
is the daughter of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand died intestate on 11/09/2009 left behind two legal heirs i.e. revisionists. Revisionist No.1 was married to Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand on 25/09/1985 and out of the said wedlock, revisionist No.2 was born. Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and revisionist No.1 have no other children. Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and revisionist No.1 both were Government employees and Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand was working in Ministry of Earth Sciences, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Since the revisionists were the only surviving legal heirs of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand, family pension was issued to revisionists. Only the names of revisionists were written in the details of family column of the CGHS card. Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand had two brothers namely Late Sh. Vinod Anand and Late Sh. Rakesh Anand. Late Sh. Vinod Anand has one son namely Nitin Anand and Late Sh. Rakesh Anand has two children namely Siddharth Anand and Vidhi Anand. Nitin Anand is working as property dealer and he is a habitual cheater and various complaints regarding forgery and cheating against him have been filed in the various Police Stations. Nitin Anand due to his greed towards the properties started using the name of Rakesh Anand as his father in identity proof documents such as Voter I-Card. Nitin Anand in connivance with Renu Anand, Siddharth Anand and Vidhi Anand, has changed the name of his father in his Voter I-Card and added the name of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand as his father. Nitin Anand was also using the name of Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2024.03.30 14:40:06 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.4 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand as his father in his driving licence and on the complaint of the revisionists, Competent Authority has revoked the licence of Nitin Anand. The whole purpose of Nitin Anand to make false and fabricated documents was that he wanted to usurp the properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. Nitin Anand has forged the property documents in connivance with some officials of DDA and added his name as the co-allottee with Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. As per DDA guidelines, a co-allotte can only be a spouse and when the Authorities asked for spouse documents, Nitin Anand created a false affidavit in the name of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand that he is living separately from his wife and daughter and name of Nitin Anand be added as co-allottee in the DDA property bearing No.LIG Flat No.127, 3 rd Floor, Sector-18-B, Phase-2, Dwarka, New Delhi. Revisionists had made complaint to the DDA but till date, no action has been taken. Respondents Nitin Anand, Renu Anand, Siddharth Anand, Vidhi Anand and unknown officials of DDA have wrongfully got the possession of the property by making false documents, signatures, affidavit, identity proofs, driving licence, school certificate, etc. Joint owned property of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand are Flat No.2D, Pocket-DG-2, Vikaspuri, New Delhi- 110018 and Flat No.233, GH-9, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi- 110087. Singly owned property of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand is LIG Flat No.127, 3rd Floor, Sector-18-B, Phase-2, Dwarka, New Delhi. The respondents in collusion with each other arrived at oral family settlement without informing the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:40:19 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.5 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
revisionists that Nitin Anand will have the possession of Paschim Vihar and Dwarka properties and Renu Anand, Siddharth Anand and Vidhi Anand will have the possession of Vikas Puri property. Nitin Anand had also forged and created a false 12 th Class certificate, wherein he added the name of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand as father. Marriage of the revisionist Usha Anand and Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand was solemnized on 25/09/1985 but date of birth of Nitin Anand in driving licence is shown as 26/09/1979. Nitin Anand is neither biological nor adopted son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and Usha Anand. Nitin Anand has created a false and fabricated document showing Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand as his father to usurp the properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. The revisionists have been informed that Nitin Anand has also sold the properties in which Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand had a share or was the owner and thereby caused unlawful loss to the revisionists and unlawful gain to himself. The case requires thorough investigation after seizure of relevant documents and also ascertaining the persons, who are involved in the commission of the offence. After the demise of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand, Nitin Anand had written a letter to DDGM intimating about the demise of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and represented himself as his son.
3. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:41:13 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.6 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
Grounds of revision- Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the FIR ought to have been directed to be lodged by the Ld. Trial Court on the basis of the fact that cognizable offences were made out and it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case that such registration of FIR is mandatory. Scientific investigation is required to be conducted in the present case as the persons involved in the case are to be interrogated, forged and fabricated documents have to be seized, persons who created the forged and fabricated documents have to be investigated/interrogated, sample handwriting of persons who had committed the forgery has to be taken and compared in the FSL and investigation has to be done to find out the beneficiaries of the crime and the role of all accused has to be find out. Complaint discloses commission of cognizable offfences and the registration of FIR is mandatory in terms of Lalita Kumari judgment. Ld. Trial Court has not considered the material fact that the respondent Nitin Anand proclaiming himself to be the son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand whereas he is the son of Late Sh. Vinod Anand. Ld. Trial Court has not considered the material fact that the respondent has got prepared false and fabricated documents such as driving license, school mark-sheet and Voter-ID wherein he shown himself to be son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. Nitin Anand is neither the biological nor adopted son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and he is creating false and fabricated documents to usurp the properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. Ld. Trial Court has failed to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:41:24 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.7 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
consider that IO has not conducted any investigation of Renu Anand, Sidharth Anand and Vidhi Anand. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that no investigation was conducted by the IO from the CBSE with regard to the fake mark-sheet of Nitin Anand. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that fake documents are still in the possession of Nitin Anand. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that property documents with respect to the Dwarka Flat are fake and created by the respondents conspiring with the DDA official. Ld. Trial Court is unjustified in holding that identities of the respondents as well as of the witnesses are known to the revisionists. Ld. Trial Court is unjustified in holding that no technical investigation is required and evidence is within the reach of the revisionists. Ld. Trial Court is unjustified in holding that Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand made Nitin Anand as co-allottee during his lifetime and there are submissions of documents in DDA. Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand never executed any conveyance deed in favour of Nitin Anand and same shows that the documents submitted in DDA for adding Nitin Anand as co-allottee are forged and fabricated by the respondents. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that IO did not conduct any investigation from the concerned officials, who informed that the concerned file is not traceable. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the matter is not a property dispute but pertains to cheating, fraud, forgery and conspiracy. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that IO did not properly conducted Digitally the investigation in the matter. signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:41:36 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.8 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
4. The respondent No.2 to 5 have contested the present revision petition of the revisionists by filing detailed reply, wherein they denied the contents of the present revision petition and prayed for dismissal of the same with costs.
It is mentioned in the reply that present petition of the revisionists is not maintainable and Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. Revisionists have not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. In the year 1980, the parents of Nitin Anand have expired and he was adopted by Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand at the time of condolence gathering/last rites/rasam pagri as per Hindu customs and traditions. In the year 1998, the revisionist No.1 has thrown out her husband Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand from the matrimonial home and since then the revisionist No.1 was living separately and thereafter, never cohabited as husband and wife. Revisionist no.1 is the estranged wife of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and she has not joined the cremation/last rites of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. Revisionist No.1 never paid a single penny towards acquisition of the property in question. During the lifetime of Madan Gopal Anand and their children, Ashok Kumar Anand and Rakesh Anand, an oral family settlement was reached with regard to the Vikaspuri and Paschim Vihar properties and it was settled that flat of Vikas Puri shall be exclusively owned/ vest with Rakesh Anand and flat of Paschim Vihar with Nitin Anand for their exclusive use. Revisionist No.1 never visited the property nor paid any single Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:41:50 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.9 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
penny for maintenance and she had never been in possession of the property. Revisionists have also concealed the material fact that they have filed civil suit No.DJ-158/2023 titled as "Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. Nitin Anand & Ors." and same is pending in the Court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. ADJ-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The revisionists have filed the present revision petition just to harass the respondents. The present matter is civil in nature regarding partition of ancestral property for which matter is subjudice and no cognizable offence has ever committed. The incident took place, when the respondent No.2 was only six months old when his parents expired in the year 1980 and respondent No.3, 4 and 5 were nowhere in the picture. Revisionist No.1 and 2 were also not in the picture. Hence, question of law is not applicable in the present matter. No scientific investigation is required in the present case as all the documents/ record have been procured by the revisionists under RTI from the concerned Authority and same are in their custody and placed on record by the revisionists. In the present matter, investigation has already been conducted by the concerned SHO as per the order of the Ld. Trial Court. Case law relied upon by the revisionists is not applicable in the present matter. Material placed on record by the revisionists themselves confirms that Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand had adopted the respondent No.2 Nitin Anand and during his lifetime, Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand declared him as his son wherever required. The aforesaid documents are genuine and true. Mark-sheet is the correct andDigitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:42:11 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.10 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
genuine document as Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand has adopted the respondent No.2 Nitin Anand. CBSE Board has nothing to do as it records the details of the candidates as per details furnished by the parents of the students. DDA has nothing to do as it records the details of the allotees in its record as per the details and record submitted by the prospective allotees.
5. This Court already heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 to 5 and Addl. PP for the State/ respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 to 5 that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent No.1 that Court may pass the judgment in accordance with law.
The counsel for the revisionists in support of his Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:42:24 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.11 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
contentions has relied upon case law titled as "Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others. {(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1}".
6. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 14/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"14.07.2023 (The undersigned is also looking after the Link work of Ld. CMM, West) Order on application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Rawat. Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Arguments on application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. heard.
I have carefully considered the complaint alongwith the annexures as well as the ATR filed by the police.
Briefly, it is the case of the complainant that she is the widow of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand, whereas co-complainant is their daughter and that Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand died intestate on 11.09.2009 leaving behind the abovesaid heirs as per the surviving membership certificate issued by the concerned Revenue Department. That proposed accused Nitin Anand is proclaiming himself to be the son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand, whereas he is the son of Late Sh. Vinod Anand, who was the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:42:34 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.12 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
brother of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. That proposed accused Nitin Anand has got prepared false and fabricated documents such as Driving License and Voter ID, wherein he has showed himself to be the son of Late Sh. Rakesh Anand and also prepared separate Voter ID, Class 12 th Marksheet, School Transfer Certificate, wherein he has showed himself as the son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. That proposed accused Nitin Anand is neither the biological son or adopted son of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and he is trying to grab the properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand so as to deprive the lawful heirs of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand, who are the present complainants. That proposed accused Renu Anand, Sidharth Anand and Vidhi Anand are the relatives of complainants and the proposed accused Nitin Anand, who have entered into an oral family settlement qua properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand at Paschim Vihar, Vikaspuri and Dwarka i.e. Flat No. 233, GH-9, Paschim Vihar, Flat No. 2-B, Pocket DG-2, Vikaspuri and LIG Flat No. 127, 3rd Floor, Sector 18-B, Phase-2, Dwarka that proposed accused Nitin Anand shall have possession over Paschim Vihar and Dwarka properties and proposed accused Renu Anand, Sidharth Anand and Vidhi Anand shall have possession over the Vikaspuri property. That the Paschim Vihar and Vikaspuri properties were jointly owned properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand while the Dwarka property was singly owned property of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand. That proposed accused Nitin Anand using the abovesaid false and fabricated documents conspiring with some DDA officials got himself added as a co-allottee in the Dwarka property. That proposed accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:42:45 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.13 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
Nitin Anand had also written a letter to the DDGM Lodhi Road intimating them regarding the death of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and had represented himself as his son and asked for the settlement of his dues.
It is prayed that FIR be lodged under Section 420/465/467/471/120-B/34/37 IPC as cognizable offences have been committed. Heard. Perused.
ATR was filed by the IO SI Amandeep Rana, as per which, upon inquiry, it was found that the name of father of proposed accused Nitin Anand was written as Ashok Anand on his Voter ID and DL. Notice was served on DDA but as per their reply, the main allottment file of Dwarka property was not traceable in the DDA record. Inquiry was also conducted from Indian Meteorological Department, wherein officials told the IO verbally that complainant used to abuse and quarrel with her husband and sometimes even beat him at the office by visiting there. Inquiry was conducted from proposed accused Nitin Anand, who told that his parents died in road accident when he was six months old and Late Sh. Ashok Anand was his guardian cum-father, although there was no formal adoption. That complainant shared an estranged relationship with Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and they were living separately for last 11 years. IO has also stated as per the ATR that it was found that Late Sh. Ashok Anand had written letter to DDA for including proposed accused Nitin Anand as a co-allottee in the Dwarka Flat during his lifetime and the same was approved by DDA. It is submitted by the IO that this is a family dispute regarding property of Late Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:42:56 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.14 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
Sh. Ashok Anand and no offence of cheating or forgery is found in the present case and the present complaint be dismissed.
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State 2001 IVAD Delhi 625, 92 (2001) DLT 217, 2001 (59) DRJ 129 that, "it is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in to help the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled "Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors." ... "Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those cases where the same are warranted. The Section empower the Magistrate to issue directions in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:43:08 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.15 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
this regard but this provision should not be permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police cases registered even in those cases which are not very serious in nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required. Therefore a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact."
Considering the fact and circumstances, the identities of the proposed accused persons as well as of the witnesses is known to the complainant. It appears that no scientific or technical investigation is required at this stage and if so required, recourse is there of Section 202 Cr.P.C. The complainants have the evidence within their reach and the same is documentary in nature. Complainants can summon the witnesses, who may depose in their favour. Further, so far as the documents are concerned, it appears that proposed accused Nitin Anand has been added as co-allottee in the Dwarka Flat of the original allottee Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand upon his request during his lifetime and also there are submissions to DDA regarding the estranged relationship between Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and his wife i.e. the present complainant. The dispute appears to be pertaining to the properties of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand and the lawful claim of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:43:24 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.16 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
complainants as the heirs of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand to his share in his properties. No ground for lodging of FIR is made out since the evidence is within the reach of the complainants.
Accordingly, application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
However, cognizance is taken upon complaint and opportunity is given to the complainants to lead pre-summoning evidence u/S 200 Cr.P.C. for 03.10.2023.
AAKASH SHARMA MM-08/WEST, THC, DELHI 14.07.2023"
7. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:43:34 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.17 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
8. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:43:46 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.18 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
9. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:43:56 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.19 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
Anr." {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well- known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:44:07 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.20 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:44:17 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.21 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order.
In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. Vs. Fazru"
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:44:28 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.22 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
{(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus: "An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:44:41 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.23 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:45:01 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.24 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11) "11. ..... It is now well-nigh settled Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:45:14 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.25 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:45:25 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.26 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
(not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as " Neelam Mahajan and Anr. Vs. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:45:36 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.27 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
10. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 14/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionists/ complainants was dismissed.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr." {WP (CRL 1253/2016 and Crl. MA No.6591/2016 decided on Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:45:48 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.28 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
10/01/2017} that "therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable".
Hence, the present revision petition qua the dismissal of the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
11. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision petition on merits.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 14/07/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionists/ complainants was dismissed.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss law relating to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The scheme of Cr.P.C. is such that an Officer In-charge of a Police Station has to initiate investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the first information report, on receiving the information of the commission of a cognizable offence. From the plain reading of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., it is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is made before an officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form to register a case on the basis of information pertaining to cognizable offence. But when the police officers do not register a Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2024.03.30 14:46:02 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.29 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
case disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and complaint in this regard is made to the Magistrate, then under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. ' may ' order investigation. The expression used herein is ' may ' and not ' shall ' or ' must '. The expression ' shall ' or ' must' implies that the provision is mandatory and expression ' may ' gives discretion to the Magistrate.
In this regard, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Devarapalli Lakshinarayana Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors." {AIR 1976 SC 1672} that:-
"It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words " may take cognizance" which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with "must take cognizance".
The word " may " gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:46:15 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.30 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
This raises the incidental question:
What is meant by "taking cognizance of an offence" by a Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190? This expression has not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and marginal heading of Section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The ways in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted and the nature of the preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:46:25 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.31 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State {2001 IV AD (DELHI) 625} that :-
"A Magistrate must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.'' It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as Gulab Chand Upadhyaya V. State of U.P. {2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 514} that :-
"The scheme of Cr. P. C. and the prevailing circumstances require that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised. Where Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:46:37 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.32 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
some "investigation" is required which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant, and which can only be done by the police upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, for example:-
1 Where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or 2 Where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or 3 Where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence is required to be collected and preserved. To illustrate by example, cases may be visualized where for production before court at the trial (a) Sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident, or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed, or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, or
(d) preparation of inquest report, or
(e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:46:48 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.33 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
titled as "Pawan Verma Vs. SHO, PS Model Town & Ors." {2009(2) JCC 1000 Delhi}, that:-
"It is not that in every case merely on the asking of the petitioner the Court must direct registration of an FIR unless the Court is satisfied with the preliminary evidence which is to be submitted by the complainant with an FIR must be registered..........".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Mohd Salim Vs. State" {175(2010) DLT 473} that :-
"The use of the expression may in Sub- section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does not require investigation by the Police and can be proved by the complainant himself, without any assistance from the Police. In that case, he may, instead of directing investigation by the Police, straightaway take cognizance of the alleged offence Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:47:02 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.34 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses, if any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the Police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the police under section 156(3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation of which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:47:15 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.35 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
the Police".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Mohd. Yusuf Khan Vs. State & Anr." {2014 (3) JCC 1665} that :-
"The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in a routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set into motion on the mere asking of a party.....'' It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Kusum Lata Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {Crl. MC No.1880/2020 decided on 19/04/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"it is clear from the scheme of section 156, where the police fail in its duty to register and investigate a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person may file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Where the Magistrate receives a complaint the word 'may' give a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. Two courses are open to the Court; either take cognizance under Section 190 or may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:47:27 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.36 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, Magistrate may take cognizance on the basis of the complaint instituted before him and may adopt the procedure provided under sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. and if there is no substance in the prima facie evidence adduced by the complainant, the complaint may be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. In view of above facts, observation made by the courts below and the law discussed, the material facts of the present case are well within the knowledge of the petitioner including the identity of the accused persons. Hence, she can establish her case while leading evidence before the trial court under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellant Court".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Anjuri Kumari Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {WP (CRL) 1210/2023 and CRL. M.A.11298/2023 decided on 29/11/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the directions for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code cannot be given by the Magistrate mechanically. Such a direction can be given only on application of mind by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is not bound to direct Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:47:37 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.37 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. Each case has to be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved therein. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police. In the present case, all the facts and evidence are within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can adduce during the inquiry conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code."
12. Counsel for the revisionists in support of his contentions has relied upon the case law titled as Lalita Kumari (supra).
After referring the Lalita Kumari case (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat"
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:47:46 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.38 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
{ AIR 2015 SC 1742} that :-
"20 It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation Under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K.Aiyappa : (2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed:
11. The scope of Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case : (2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction Under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter Under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, should be reflected in the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:48:00 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.39 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra).
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that the direction Under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate.
When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.
Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra) may fall Under Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case." Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:48:12 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.40 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
13. The criminal complaint of the complainants/ revisionists u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. is pending before the Ld. Trial Court for pre-summoning evidence. On 19/03/2024, the complainant/ revisionist No.1 Usha Anand was examined as CW-1 before the Ld. Trial Court. In her aforesaid testimony, CW-1 Usha Anand had deposed that the complainants have also filed a partition suit in the Court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. ADJ-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and written statement has also been filed. The respondent No.2 to 5 in the reply to the present revision petition stated that the revisionists have filed civil suit No.DJ-158/2023 titled as "Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. Nitin Anand & Ors." and same is pending in the Court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. ADJ-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The factum regarding filing of the aforesaid civil suit has not been mentioned in the present revision petition of the revisionists.
In the ATR filed by SI Amandeep Rana before the Ld. Trial Court, it is mentioned that certified copies of Voter I-Card and Driving License of proposed accused Nitin Anand were obtained, in which, it was found that name of his father was written as Ashok Anand. It is also mentioned in the ATR that as per reply of Assistant Director (LIG) H, DDA, the main allotment file of the flat is not traceable in DDA record despite sincere effort. It is also mentioned in the ATR that on perusal of some more documents, it was found that Ashok Anand had written a letter to DDA for inclusion of the name of Nitin Anand as a co-allottee in the LIG flat of Dwarka which was also approved by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:48:25 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.41 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
the DDA. It is also mentioned in the ATR that Nitin Anand is not a biological son of Ashok Anand but he lived with Ashok Anand till his death. It is also mentioned in the ATR that this is a family dispute of a property and no such offence of cheating as well as forgery is made out after conducting the inquiry.
In the complaint case before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionists/complainants had filed the copies of documents i.e. death certificate of Ashok Kumar Anand, surviving member certificate, pension payment order dated 17/12/2013, CGHS Card, reply of RTI, extract of driving license, certificates of registration, I-Card of A.K. Anand, application form for registration, registration form, undertakings, allotment letters, affidavits, driving license of Nitin Anand, affidavit from co-allottee, indemnity bonds, mark-sheet of Nitin Anand, ration card, acknowledgment, conveyance deed, letters, etc. On 19/03/2024, the complainant/ revisionist No.1 Usha Anand was examined as CW-1 before the Ld. Trial Court and in her aforesaid testimony, CW-1 Usha Anand had relied/exhibited documents i.e. CW-1/1 to CW-1/16 and Mark-A to C. Filing of copies of the aforesaid documents shows that all the documentary evidence are within the reach and knowledge of the revisionists/complainants and nothing is to be collected for which the assistance of the police is required.
Revisionists and respondent No.2 to 5 are stated to be relatives. In view of the above, it is clear that the parties are ascertained. The facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:48:41 +0530 CR No. 454/2023 Page No.42 of 43 Usha Anand & Anr. Vs. The State & Ors.
revisionists/complainants. There is nothing for which the police assistance is additionally necessary to be called for. The revisionists/ complainants are in a position to lead evidence in the matter. The evidence is within the reach of revisionists/complainants and no custodial interrogation of accused is necessary for recovery of article or discovery of fact.
14. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionists is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.03.30 14:48:53 +0530 Announced in the open Court on 30/03/2024 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 454/2023 Page No.43 of 43