Delhi District Court
Charan Dass Aggarwal vs The State on 25 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA;
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.23/10
Charan Dass Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Shri Ram
R/o C-9/2, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053
.... Revisionist.
Vs.
1. The State
2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
E-Block, Videocon Tower,
Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi
Through its
Legal Manager/Authorised Officer/Representative
3. M/s Alianze Capital Finance And Leasing,
59/9, Basement, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-60
Through
Parveen Pathania ( D.S.A ICICI Bank)
4. Sh. Bharat Sharma S/o Sh. S.K.Sharma
R/o D-35, Gali No. 3 Madhuwan Mohalla,
Maujpur,Shahdara,Delhi-53.
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 12.07.2010
Date of Arguments : 10.08.2010
Date of Order : 25.08.2010
ORDER
The present Revision Petition is filed by Revisionist Crl. Rev. No. 23/10 Page 1 /6 2 Charan Dass Aggarwal for setting aside the impugned order 12.04.2010 passed by Sh. Sanjay Khangwal, M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby he dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Revisionist.
The facts are that the Revisionist filed a complaint along with an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s 379/406/409/420/120-B/34 IPC read with section 200 Cr.P.C. against the three accused persons before the trial court. Vide order dated 12.04.2010 passed by Sh. Sanjay Khangwal, M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Revisionist. However, while taking cognizance of the offence as alleged, the Revisionist was directed to bring his evidence.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 12.4.2010 passed by Ld. M.M., the present Revision Petition was filed by the Complainant/ Revisionist. The Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds :
I) Ld. M.M. while passing the impugned order has committed grave error and ignored the fact that even police officials of P.S. Bhajanpura were duty bound to register the FIR U/s 154(3) Cr.P.C. II) Ld. M.M. has committed grave error while passing the impugned order by ignoring the fact that the recovery of the cash/stolen items /jewellery was yet to be effected from the possession of the accused/respondents for which custodial interrogation is must.Crl. Rev. No. 23/10 Page 2 /6 3
III) Ld. M.M. while passing the impugned order did not consider the fact that Respondent no. 4 has admitted the entire fact about receiving of payment from the Revisionist and filed an affidavit in this regard before the Consumer Forum.
I have heard Sh. Vishesh Kumar Raghave Advocate for the Revisionist and Sh. Mukul Kumar Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State/Respondent no.1. I have also perused the file and trial court record.
As per section 190 of the Cr.P.C there are three modes of taking cognizance of a criminal offence. The said provision is reproduced as under:
"190. Cognizance of offence by Magistrate.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence.
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2)The Chief Judicial Magistrate may Crl. Rev. No. 23/10 Page 3 /6 4 (3)empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub section (1) of such offence as are within his competence to inquire into or try."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case reported in 2009 X AD (DELHI) 701 titled as V.P.Sharma(Dr.) Vs. State and others, held that:
" The second mode provides filing of a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. then the complainant is required to lead his evidence and if the Magistrate is satisfied, after recording pre-summoning evidence, that a case is made out then the Magistrate can summon the accused. No doubt, there is a power available to the Magistrate to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C during the course of the pendency of such a complaint so as to enable the investigating agency to collect the evidence which may not be possible for the accused to lead. However, such power is not to be exercised enabling the complainant to misuse the provisions by seeking registration of FIR, which has not been registered on a complaint made to the S.H.O by complainant himself.
The insistence to direct the Magistrate to take the other course of exercise of directing registration of FIR by calling for an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is putting the entire Cr.P.C on a different pedestal. It is being raised by people who does not want to lead evidence or who does not have Crl. Rev. No. 23/10 Page 4 /6 5 evidence to substantiate the complaint in accordance with law. In the present case also, the petitioner has not chosen to file a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C and he wanted to adopt a short cut. More so, when the allegations prima facie reveals that it is a civil matter.
In view of section 190 Cr.P.C. and the judgment cited above reported in 2009 X AD (DELHI) 701 titled as V.P.Sharma(Dr.) Vs. State and others, ( supra ), I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. M.M. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. The trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
The Revision filed be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open court On this 25.08.2010 ( Surinder Kumar Sharma ) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 23/10 Page 5 /6