Delhi District Court
Sh Rajeev Chadha vs Smt. Mano Rana on 9 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.15/12
Sh Rajeev Chadha
S/o Sh Abnash Chander Chadha
B98, Ground Floor, Naraina
New Delhi110028
....Revisionist
Vs.
1. Smt. Mano Rana, Principal
2. Sh Surjit Singh, Vice Principal
3. Sh Booley Singh, Principal
4. Sh P.K.Sharma, ADE, EstablishmentIII, DOE
...... Respondent
Date of Institution: 10.01.2012
Reserved for Order on: 03.05.2012
Order Pronounced on : 09.05.2012
ORDER
The present revision petition u/s 397/401 Cr.PC has been preferred against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by Sh. Pawan Singh Rajawat, Ld. MM whereby the revisionist/accused Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.1 of 9 were summoned for the offences u/s 167 IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC .
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision petition are that revisionist had filed complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC against eight respondents alleging that he joined as TGT in Govt. Boys Secondary School Hastsal on 27.02.98 and he had been transferred to Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalya School, Naraina on 1.04.1999. On 17.7.07 a transfer order of the complainant was found on the internet in the list of 791 teachers who had applied for transfer online which was not feasible or possible when the complainant had not applied for the same nor the complainant was having the password and as such no endorsement on application without password was made which was prerequisite for the online transfer of an employee and this appeared to be a well planned conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to harm him and given benefit to Sh BK Singh who had become surplus and was the only person who could have been benefited. On 18.07.2006 the complainant contacted the Head of the school Sh.Vijay Laxmi Rani as to how his name is existing in the list who avoided him and thereafter complainant sent letters to various higher authorities. It has been alleged that the complainant could not work properly in the school and he suffered mental shock and agony. He remained sick from 20.7.06 to 31.07.2006. Complainant Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.2 of 9 also moved an application under RTI for seeking information regarding his transfer order to which reply was received on 23.8.06. He was directed to file RTI Appeal under section 19. Thereafter on 02.08.06 he sought permission of Principal to file an application to the Directorate for seeking his password which was never apprised to him by his previous school officials and particularly by Mrs. Vijay Laxmi Rani who knew about it and this fact had only come to his notice when the aforesaid fraud was committed in respect of his aforesaid illegal transfer and accused no.2 Maha Sigh had given false representation that he had returned the leave application of the complainant to him at his residential address which fact is not borne out from the record of despatch. Maha Singh had done mischief being hand in glove with accused no.1 who was by then transferred on 21.7.06 and relieved on 24.7.06. As per information provided by PIO, HQ on 24.6.06 Head of school had sent the online transfer application under her covering letter to A.O EIII where the name of the complainant was scored out at sr.no.5 and accompanying application was dated 25.6.06 which was not feasible as the last date of submissions of online application was 24.6.06 and even otherwise 25.6.06 was Sunday and this application which was required to be signed by the Head of the School was alleged to be bearing sr.no.1247 and Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.3 of 9 the said covering letter was received by Diarist at sr.no.3204/EIII on 29.6.06 which itself showed the mischief having been committed by the Head of School of complainant at Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Naraina and mischief appeared to have been done to retain the senior most TGT Sh BK Singh who was alone to be benefited by mischief. It has been alleged that accused no.8 Sh PK Sharma, ADE was duty bound to scrutinize hard copies of the online transfer application report and perusal of the same would have shown manipulation. The complainant moved application for permission to move to the police for mischief and sought permission to lodge FIR with regard to the above forgery to the Dy. Director and Education Officer Zone20 directly after having not been allowed by Vice Principal K.P.Singh. Complainant made another representation on 13.11.2006 and on 4.12.06 he was informed that Ms. Mano Rana, Principal has been directed to enquiry upon the complaint. No intimation was given to the complainant though on 14.12.06 Inquiry Officer had submitted her report to E.O.Zone20. It has been alleged that the vigilance department in their preliminary inquiry had itself observed that as per the investigation it was found by them that there was some foul play in the transfer of the complainant as the signatures of the complainant shown on the transfer application and the documents Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.4 of 9 placed before them showed that they did not tally. Hence complaint was filed. Complainant evidence was led. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments on summoning, Ld. MM summoned accused no.1Sm.t Vijay Laxmi Rani, accused no.4 Sh.B.K.Singh and accused no.5 Sh Harish Manchanda for the commission of offence punishable u/s 167 IPC r/w sec.120B IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, revisionist has preferred this present revision petition for setting aside the said order.
3. The present revision petition was received by this court and trial court record was received. I have heard the arguments on this revision petition from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as from the Ld. APP for the State.
4. During the course of arguments it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate the facts that the powers of Ld.MM u/s 156(3) Cr.PC are very wide and he relied upon a Judgment 2008(2) SCC 409 but the Ld.MM has failed to appreciate that even after registering of an FIR, if no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and can direct proper investigation. It has been submitted that Ld. MM has failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts while the complaint show that a Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.5 of 9 fraud and forgery having been committed by all the respondents in active connivance with each other. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of Judgments has held that the Magistrate has power to direct for further investigation even after the final report is filed and as such it would be a traversity of justice to say that a court having the authority to direct further investigation and pass a final order in regard to investigation would have no power to pass interim orders during the course of investigation and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained under law. It has further been submitted that Ld. MM has not passed any speaking order and has not considered the matter in the right perspective and has passed an order without taking into account the facts and the role of the other respondents who were instrumental in fraudulent on line transfer application having been sought to have been moved by the revisionist and the fact that these people had with a common intention and purpose done this mischief to cause harm to the revisionist when all these facts had come to light through RTI applications moved by the revisionist and no reasons for not summoning the other respondents as accused has been shown in the impugned order which has caused grave injustice to the revisionist. It has further been submitted that the order is based on surmises and conjectures and is not based on Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.6 of 9 sound and cogent reasoning. It has been prayed that the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 be modified to the extent that the other respondent who were not summoned be ordered to be summoned as accused persons to face the trial.
5. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, I have also perused the trial court file and particularly the complaint filed by the revisionist/complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C and the status report submitted by the Police. It is well settled law that in revision petitions only the illegality committed by the the Ld. Trial court is to be taken into consideration. So, I have perused the order passed by the Ld. Trial court dated 31.10.2011vide which only accused no. 1,4 & 5 were summoned for the offence u/s 167 IPC r/w sec.120B IPC. Ld. Counsel has argued regarding powers of Ld.MM u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. However, in the the present case, the accused were summoned after leading presummoning evidence. Ld.counsel has argued regarding regarding powers under 156(3) Cr.PC. Sec 156 contemplates Police Officer's Power to investigate cognizable case (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of the Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.7 of 9 provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered u/s 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned. The words `as abovementioned' obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station.
6. Section 156 (3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr .P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. Perusal of the record revealed that Ld.MM has already taken steps in this respect and even called for status reports from the concerned Police station.
7. It is well settled law that in revision only illegality committed by the Ld. Trial court is to be seen and corrected if any. It is also well settled law that at the time of summoning, the prima facie evidence is to be considered. Reverting back to the complaint filed by the complainant revealed that there is there is no prima Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.8 of 9 facie offence made out against the respondents in revision. There is no force in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist for summoning the respondents. Therefore, I did not find any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 31.10.2011.
8. In view of my above discussions and material available on file, the order on summoning passed by the Ld. MM is maintained and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
9. Revisionist to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 14.05.2012.
10. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 09.05.2012.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Rajeev Chadha Vs. Mano Rana etc. Crl.Rev. no.15/2012 Page No.9 of 9