Delhi District Court
Satya Muni Verma vs . State & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
CR No.28/14
Satya Muni Verma Vs. State & Ors.
28.01.2014
Present: None.
Vide my separate detailed order placed alongside in the file,
the Revision Petition does not deserve any merit to succeed at this stage,
hence, the same is dismissed. Revision Petition stands disposed of
accordingly. Trial Court record, if any be sent back with a copy of the
order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
( Raj Kapoor )
ASJ03/NDD/ 28.01.2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Criminal Rev. No.28/14
IN THE MATTER OF :
Satya Muni Verma
S/o late Sh. Murari Lal
R/o WZ430B, Village Naraina,
New Delhi
..............Revisionist
Versus
1.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi )
2.Om Prakash Chauhan
S/o late Sh. Hardwari Lal
3. Smt. Raj Dulari
W/o Sh. Om Prakash Chauhan
4. Manoj Chauhan
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Chauhan
5. Smt. Chetna Chauhan
W/o Sh. Manoj Chauhan
All R/o WZ430B/2, Village Naraina,
New Delhi.
6. Ranvir Singh
S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh
R/o CB110, Naraina, New Delhi
7. Concerned Official of Vijaya Bank
52/11, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi. ................Respondents
28.01.2014
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of revision petition filed u/s 397/399 Cr. P C by the revisionist against order dated 25.10.2013 passed by ld.MM, Patiala House Court New Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned 2 order) whereby ld. court has dismissed the application filed by the Revisionist U/Sec 156(3) Cr. P.C.
2. Briefly the factual matrix of revision case is that complainant/ revisionist has filed the complaint U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application U/Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondents/accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.406/420/468/471/34 IPC alleging that the father of the complainant and accused No.2 namely Raj Dulari purchased two plots measuring 1000 sq. yds each bearing No. WZ430B and WZ430I, Village Naraina, New Delhi by way of registered sale deed from the owner of the property in the year 1958 and 1959 respectively. As per the case of the Revisionist/complainant the Raj Dulari was allowed to reside in the premises. It is further alleged that there are number of civil cases/litigations between the complainant and the accused persons/their relatives and in one of those proceedings, the revisionist/ complainant came to know that the respondent Smt. Raj Dulari has executed registered Sale Deed on 21.03.2002 in favour of her husband i.e. respondent Om Prakash Chauhan in respect of property No.WZ430/B/2. It is further alleged that the complainant never executed any 'transfer document' in respect of abovesaid property in favour of respondent Raj Dulari. It is further alleged that respondent Raj Dulari in connivance with the other respondents got the said sale deed registered in favour of her husband who thereafter, took the loan of Rs.3 Crores approximately by 3 mortgaging the said property with the Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt. Branch, New Delhi, hence the complainant has filed the complaint before the Ld. MM.
3. Ld. trial court called the 'Status Report' from the concerned SHO wherein it has been stated that there are number of civil cases/litigations are pending between the parties and complaint is of civil nature. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.10.2013 dismissed the application filed u/ 156 (3) Cr. PC and fixed the case for C.E. for 27.01.2014 observing that : "It is clear that there is litigation of civil nature between the parties. If the complainant alleges that the registered sale deed which has been made by accused no.2 in favour of accused no.1 is a forged and fabricated document and the bank officials have granted the loan on the mortgage of the property in connivance with other accused persons, the complainant may lead evidence to that effect and the evidence can be led by getting the concerned witnesses alongwith relevant record summoned. In brief, the evidence is within the reach of the complainant. No investigation and custodial interrogation are required by the police."
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.10.2013, ld. counsel for the revisionist filed this revision petition.
4. Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for revisionist submitted that application filed U/Sec.156(3) Cr. P.C. has been dismissed by the Court of Ld. MM vide order dated 25.10.2013. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order and submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 'Lalan Chaudhary Vs. State', wherein it was held that 'SHO is duty bound to 4 register the FIR if cognizable offences is revealed in the complaint '. He further submitted that the complaint filed by the Revisionist revealed offences U/Sec. 406/420/468/471/34 IPC against the respondents. On this grounds he requested for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2013. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following judgments"
a). Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP, 2014(1) JCC 1 wherein it was observed that : "registration of FIR is mandatory Under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceedings further".
b).Anil Bothra & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2013(2) LRC 179 (Del) wherein it was observed that: "Plea of civil transaction between the partiessimply because a person has a civil remedy may not necessarily mean that he cannot pursue criminal actionconduct of a person may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability complaint lacked specific allegation with regard to threat and admittedly there was no allegation of criminal misappropriation".
c). Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2006(3) JCC 1731 wherein it was observed that : "Whether police is bound to register the caseYesSec.154 Cr. P.C. casts duty upon police officer to register the case as disclosed in the complaintThen proceed with investigation in terms of Sec.156,157 Cr.P.C. No option except to register the 5 caseReliability, genuineness and credibility of informationnot conditions precedent".
d).Ramesh Kumari Vs. State 2006(1) JCC 468 wherein it is held that : "The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offenceSince there is allegation against the police personnel, the interest of justice would be better served if the case is registered and investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.
e).Priya Gupta Vs. State 2007 (2) JCC 1330 wherein it was held that : "Police authorities are under the statutory duty to register the FIR based on the allegation made in the complaint of the petitioner and it was not permissible for the police to register FIR only in respect of minor offences mentioned in the complaint and to defer the registration of the case to hold inquiry and depending upon the result of inquiry to decide whether to register a case or not for the commission of grave offences. Police has no right to refuse registration of a case on information being laid before it about commission of cognizable offence and instead proceed with an inquiry and refuse registration as a result of the said inquiry".
5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. counsel for the revisionist. I have also perused the impugned order dated 25.10.2013 as well. Since, the dispute is between the family members and civil litigation is pending between them i.e. in the Court of Sh. Alok Aggarwal, Ld. ADJ, Dwarka, New Delhi and another matter was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on these grounds, the application filed U/Sec.156 (3) Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the Court of Ld. MM vide impugned order dated 25.10.2013. It is well settled preposition of law that the determination of facts is the exclusively domain of the Court of Ld. trial/ enquiry Court. However, this Court has limited jurisdiction to 6 enter into the domain of the discretion of Ld. MM on the grounds of propriety and correctness. Since the impugned order passed by Ld. MM after taking into consideration the 'Status Report' filed by SI Ram Niwas, wherein it has been observed that no prima facie case for the purpose of registration of case is made out. Having found so the application filed U/Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by ld. trial court and case was fixed to lead evidence to bring on record the facts of the case in judicial enquiry for the offences U/Sec.406/420/468/471/34 IPC. Therefore, to my view to give proper opportunity to the revisionist the case has been fixed for C.E. to set the criminal machinery into motion for just decision of the case. So, the citations mentioned (Supra) relied upon by Ld Counsel for Revisionist are not applicable in the present case. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the Revision Petition does not deserve any merit to succeed at this stage, hence, the same is dismissed. Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record, if any be sent back with a copy of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28.01.2014 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI 7