Delhi District Court
Sh. Dayanand vs The State Of Nct Delhi on 24 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
SPECIAL JUDGEIII (PC ACT), CBI, NORTHWEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Crl.Rev.No. 49906/2016
Sh. Dayanand
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o H.No. A1/319,, Ist Floor,
Sultanpuri,
Delhi110086 ..Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State of NCT Delhi
2. SubRegistrarVI C
Sector16, Rohini
Delhi110085 .....Respondents
Date of institution : 08.10.2016 Date of reserving the order : 21.01.2017 Date of order : 24.01.2017 ORDER
1. Pursuant to complaint being filed by the revisionist against his brother and sisterinlaw for the offences u/s 420, 464, 468, 471, 167, 404, 120B IPC r/w 200 Cr.P.C before the court of Ld. MM w.r.t to property owned by mother, Ld. MM was pleased to direct the revisionist to file an application before the DCP concerned u/s 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the status report was called which was CR No.49906/2016 Dayanand Vs State & Anr. Page no. 6 of 6 accordingly filed. The IO was also directed by Ld. MM to conduct inquiry regarding the title documents of the property in dispute. Thereafter, the IO was directed to inquire with regard to sale deed, if any registered in the name of respondents in the complaint. IO filed the same. Matter continued for one year and finally on 16.08.2016 an application was moved by the revisionist u/s 91 Cr.P.C before the court of Ld. MM seeking directions against the SubRegistrar to supply the Volume Register, Register Will and property documents executing by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.2.
2. The Ld. MM dismissed the application u/s 91 Cr.P.C on the grounds that the revisionist has got separate remedies available and hence the application was not found maintainable.
3. Present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that impugned order passed by the Ld. MM is defective and erroneous and would affect the revisionist badly. It has also mentioned that without the said documents the complaint of the revisionist would become infructuous. It has been prayed that the order of Ld. MM be set aside and directions may be issued to SubRegistrar to supply the documents. Ld. CR No.49906/2016 Dayanand Vs State & Anr. Page no. 6 of 6 Counsel for the revisionist relied upon Ashok Kaushik Vs State [1999(3) RCR (Criminal)].
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. APP for the State. I have also carefully perused the record.
5. It is not clear from the record as to what procedure is being followed by the Ld. MM after receipt of the complaint filed by the revisionist. Under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C., as per Section 202 Cr.P.C any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
6. Immediately after receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate has not chosen any of option available to him but instead directed the revisionist to move an application before the DCP concerned u/s 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Though the Magistrate was empowered to call for ATR and upon receipt of ATR CR No.49906/2016 Dayanand Vs State & Anr. Page no. 6 of 6 filed by police the Magistrate was under obligation to proceed in terms of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C rather than directing the IO to verify the documents etc. Since no application was moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate was required to inquire into the case himself and could have taken evidence of witnesses on oath in terms of Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. The matter kept lingering on before the court of Ld. MM for quite long period for the purpose of the verification of the documents alleged to be lying in Sub Registrar office. Instead the Magistrate could have fixed the case for presummoning evidence in terms of Section 202 (2) of Cr.P.C. Had the said procedure being followed by the Ld. MM, there could not have been any occasion for filing the application u/s 91 Cr.P.C for order on supplying of documents by the revisionist before the court of Ld. MM as the same could have been summoned by the Ld. MM u/s 91 Cr.P.C or in the other words the court could have summoned these documents during pre summoning evidence in case it would have strictly followed the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C and could have ordered for production of same.
7. Section 91 deals with summons to produce document or thing. It is applicable only when the court itself or the police CR No.49906/2016 Dayanand Vs State & Anr. Page no. 6 of 6 officer considers that the production of certain documents is necessary and court may direct the officer concerned in whose possession the document may be lying to produce the same before the competent authority.
8. Be that as it may, the order vide which an application u/s 91 Cr.P.C has been dismissed on the grounds that separate remedies are available, it appears to this court suffers from no incorrectness or infirmity as in case the SubRegistrar could not oblige the revisionist for supplying the copies of the requisite documents, the revisionist have efficaciously remedy available to him before the higher platforms of the executives. Moreover, Section 91 Indian Evidence is applicable only for production of document or trial before a court and under the said provision the Magistrate is not authorized to direct a particular authority to supply the documents to a person. In the case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for revisionist, the ratio does not call for direction of supply of document but it is for direction of summoning of document or thing.
9. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. The Ld. MM is impressed upon strictly follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter XV of Cr.P.C instead of dealing the CR No.49906/2016 Dayanand Vs State & Anr. Page no. 6 of 6 matter by indulging into unnecessary inquiries which does not fall in line with law laid down.
10.No order as to cost. Nothing herein shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on the merits of case before Ld. MM.
11.TCR be sent back alongwith the copy of the order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal) On 24.01.2017. Special JudgeIII (PC Act), CBI Rohini Courts, Delhi CR No.49906/2016 Dayanand Vs State & Anr. Page no. 6 of 6