Delhi High Court
Smt. Meenakshi Anand Sootha W/O Shr. ... vs The State And Anr. on 20 November, 2007
Author: V.B. Gupta
Bench: V.B. Gupta
JUDGMENT V.B. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner by way of the present petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 and Section 482 of CrPC, is seeking quashing of the order dated 24.1.2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case No. 1267/2001.
2. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint case in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. In that complaint case, petitioner also filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC praying for giving directions to the SHO to investigate the matter.
Vide impugned order, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had given beating to the petitioner and have outraged her modesty and had run away with a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. All these allegations, discloses commission of cognizable offence and under these circumstances, the Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have sent the matter for investigation and for registration of FIR, to the police.
4. In the complaint case filed by the petitioner, the copy of which has been placed on record, the petitioner has nowhere mentioned the place of occurrence and has also not mentioned as to what was the occasion for the respondent to give beating to the petitioner and snatching Rs. 20,000/- from her.
5. In her complaint dated 10.12.2006, made to the police, copy of which is at page 28 of the paper book, an altogether different version has been given by the petitioner, which is not her case in the present complaint filed before the Magistrate.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is having litigation with the respondents and prima facie, the present case appears to be a counter blast to that litigation. Moreover, as per the petitioner's case, the incident is of 10.12.2006 and she remained admitted in the hospital till 11.12.2006. As per photocopy of the medical documents placed on record, the petitioner visited Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini on 11.12.2006 and not on 10.12.2006, as an out door patient.
7. So, prima facie, false averments have been made by the petitioner in her complaint itself.
8. Moreover, at page 30 of the paper book, there is a copy of Action Taken Report placed on record. This report is dated 23.1.2007, the same has been submitted by the Addl. DCP to the Magistrate. The relevant extract of this report reads as under:
This is with reference to the above-said notice. Enquiry has been got conducted into the allegations leveled by Smt. meenakshi Anand Sootha but could not be substantiated. On 10-12-2006. Sh Gokul Anand Sootha, husband of the complainant, wanted to organize a "Ruhani Satsang" on the main road oppsite H. No. F-2/130, Sector 16 Rohini and Sanatan Dharam Mandir by blocking the main road without any permission either from traffic Police or the land owing agency. The local residents also raised strong objections to the blocking of the main road and the function was not permitted. A dispute amidst the management of temple i.e.; Sanatan Dharam Sabha Society is also going on already with a number of complaints filed by Smt. Meenakshi Sootha and counter complaints by the residents of the locality. In view of the apprehension of breach of peace, action Under Section 107/156 Cr.P.C. was taken against both the parties which is pending trial in the court of S.E.M./NW Distt. Smt. Meenakshi Sootha is now again leveling false allegations and got herself medically examined vide O.P.D. Card No. E. No. 105951/6 at B.S.A. Hospital. The alleged incident took place around 5 PM and the complainant reported at B.S.A. Hospital at 12:30 AM. Even there, the doctor categorically mentioned at O.P.D. Card that "The patient was discharged but patient did not go" which indicates the intention of the complainant. No further action is called for on the complainant.
9. So, according to the report of the police also, the petitioner is making false allegations.
10. It is well settled that under Section 156(3), CrPC, the Magistrate has not to pass the order mechanically and has to apply his judicial mind. On this point, decision of this Court, Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625, may be referred to in which it was held:
It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigation 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 a possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass order under Section 156(3) of the Code. This 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 interest of justice demand that the police should step in to help the complainant.
11. Here in the present case, all the evidence which is in the form of oral testimony, is in the knowledge of the complainant and her witnesses. The only documentary evidence, i.e. MLC, prima facie, appears to be not connected with the present case, is also with the complainant herself. Undere these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and it is still open for the petitioner to prove her case which is pending, in accordance with law.
12. Hence the present petition is frivolous one and is without any basis and the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000/- with the trial court within a period of one month from today, failing which the trial court, shall recover the same in accordance with law.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.