Delhi District Court
Rachit Goel vs State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) on 18 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
CRL. REV. No. 388/2019
CNR No. DLST01-007062-2019
RACHIT GOEL
280, KAILASH HILLS,
NEW DELHI-110065 .... REVISIONISTS
VS.
1. STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI)
2. ASHWIN VENKATRAMAN
B-10/70, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI
3 KARAN NAMBIAR
H. NO.1375, SECTOR-A, POCKET-B & C,
VASANT KUNJ, SOUTH-WEST DELHI,
NEW DELHI-110070 ...RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.10.2019
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 18.03.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18.04.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Magistrate Court whereby it allowed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and directed registration of an FIR against the revisionist.
2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the revisionist and the respondents No.2 & 3 were in a business Digitally relationship and it is alleged that the revisionist induced the signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR respondents to invest in a private limited company promising KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.18 17:27:07 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 17 them issuance of shares and directorship in the said company. However, the respondents were not appointed as directors and further the amounts invested by the respondents were also siphoned off.
3. The respondents No.2 & 3 first approached the concerned SHO for registration of an FIR against the revisionist by way of a complaint dated 22.02.2019, thereafter, another complaint dated 02.04.2019 was again filed, however, no FIR was registered. Owing to inaction by the police, the respondents filed criminal complaint before the Ld. Magistrate Court U/s 200 of the CrPC alleging offences U/s 415,420,422,467, 468 and 503 IPC along with an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC seeking direction to the SHO PS Hauz Khas to register an FIR and investigate the same.
4. The said applications first came up for hearing before the Ld. Magistrate Court on 22.07.2019 on which date the complainant submitted that they had already approached the ACP, DCP and Joint CP with respect to the inaction of the police and the Ld. Magistrate directed them to show compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.PC.
5. On the next date of hearing i.e. 09.08.2019, the respondents filed a visitor's slip dated 15.07.2019 regarding their visit to the Joint CP at Delhi Police Headquarters and also placed on record a complaint dated 30.07.2019 received by the DCP, RAKESH South District, Delhi. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated KUMAR SINGH 01.10.2019, the Ld. Magistrate directed registration of an FIR Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH against the respondents.
Date: 2023.04.18 17:27:20 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 176. I have heard arguments on both the sides and have perused the record.
7. The revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 directing registration of the FIR against him primarily on the grounds that the applications U/s 200 & 156(3) CrPC have been filed without any supporting affidavit as mandated by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs State of UP, Crl. Appeal No. 781 of 2012, decided on 19.03.2015; and further that there is no prior compliance U/s 154(3) CrPC before filing the said applications before the Ld. Magistrate.
8. The respondents on the other hand have relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Sujan Multiports Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others, CRM- M-12329-2018(O&M) decided on 12.03.2019; and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in TVF MEDIA LABS PVT LTD & ORS. vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. CRL.M.C. 2214/2020 decided on 06.03.2023 to urge that the requirement of supporting affidavit along with application U/s 156(3) CrPC is not a mandatory requirement and further there is no requirement of prior compliance of Section 154(3) CrPC.
9. The primary question which has been urged by the RAKESH revisionist for consideration in the present revision petition is the KUMAR SINGH requirement of compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C prior Digitally signed by RAKESH to the filing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:27:31 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 17 seeking registration of an FIR, i.e. whether prior compliance U/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory or merely procedural in nature or can be overlooked?
10. For ready reference, Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C provide as follows:-
"S.154 Information in cognizable cases: (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:
...
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence".
RAKESH 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Saikiri Vasu vs KUMAR SINGH State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that :
Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:27:42 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 17"25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3)."
[Emphasis supplied]
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Priyanka Srivastava vs State of UP (supra) while dealing with the misuse of Section 156(3) Cr.PC and requirement of filing a supporting affidavit along with application U/s 156(3) CrPC has held that :
"26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported RAKESH by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the KUMAR SINGH invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in Digitally signed an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the Date: 2023.04.18 17:27:49 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 17 allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/latches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR." [Emphasis Supplied] RAKESH KUMAR SINGH 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Parshant Digitally signed by RAKESH Vashishtha vs State of Chhattisgarh, W.P. (Cr) No. 177 of 2017, KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:28:17 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 17 dated 30.1.2023, has also dealt with the question whether a Court is empowered to direct registration of an FIR under section 156(3) CrPC without the prior compliance of sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC? The Hon'ble High Court while answering the question in the affirmative has held that :
"9. Section 156(3) of the CrPC provides that "any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned". The words "as abovementioned" refer to Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the police station. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report under Section 173(8). The Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report. (See Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others).
10. The Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) has held that "if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of RAKESH filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. It was KUMAR also held, why then should writ petitions or Section 482 SINGH petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH remedies?"Date: 2023.04.18 17:28:27 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 7 of 17
11. It is well settled that in order to make a duly constituted application for invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, compliance of subsections (1) & (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC would be absolutely necessary and it is sine qua non for making the application maintainable under Section 156(1) of the CrPC.
xxx
18. ....Registration of FIR involves serious and devastating consequences on life and liberty of a person against whom the FIR is directed to be made, therefore, strict compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC is required to be made which is sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and merely endorsing a copy of application under Section 154(1) of the CrPC to the Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be the strict compliance of Section 154(3) of the CrPC, there has to be a separate and independent application under Section 154(3) of the CrPC after refusal by the SHO to register FIR." [Emphasis supplied]
14. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sri R S Yathisha vs State of Karnataka, WP No. 6940/2018 (GM-RES), decided on 6.6.2022, while dealing with the question whether FIR could have been registered under Section 156(3) CrPC without the prior compliance of Section 154(3) CrPC?, the Hon'ble Court has held that :
"5. Perusal of the complaint indicates that the complainant had approached the jurisdictional police on 26.11.2016 to register the FIR against the accused. But, the police refused to register the FIR stating that the dispute is purely civil in nature. However, Digitally signed by RAKESH there is no averment in the complaint that after refusal to register RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:
the FIR by the police the complainant had approached the higher 2023.04.18 17:28:36 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 8 of 17 official for taking appropriate action in accordance with law, by sending the complaint in writing through registered post acknowledgement due as specified under section 154(3) Cr.P.C. In the absence of any averment made in the complaint that Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. has been complied with, the complaint filed, without complying with the said requirement is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava stated supra. The complainant on the face of it having not complied with the requirement of section 154(3) Cr.P.C., it would be a futile exercise if the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to enable the complainant to file an affidavit for having complied with the requirement of Sections 154(1) and 154(3)of Cr.P.C..."[Emphasis supplied]
15. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Smt B N Sheela and Ors vs Sri G Padmanabhaiah and Ors, Crl Pet No 259 of 2021, decided on 19.7.2021, while dealing with the question of mandatory prior compliance of section 154(3) CrPC prior to registration of FIR under section 156(3) CrPC, the Hon'ble Court has held that :
"11. Therefore, compliance of requirement under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. prior to filing of the private complaint is mandatory and absence of such compliance would render the complaint defective. The trial Court ought not to have proceeded further on the basis of such defective complaint and the noncompliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. would be a incurable defect which would vitiate the proceedings before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, continuation of further proceedings before the trial Court against the petitioners would amount to abuse of RAKESH process of law and for the purpose of securing the ends of KUMAR justice, it is just and necessary to quash the entire proceedings SINGH Digitally signed by as prayed for by the petitioners."[Emphasis supplied] RAKESH KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:28:46 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 9 of 17
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Wasim Ishaque Shaikh and Anr vs Aileen Darabshaw Mistry and Anr, Crl W.P. No 397 of 2020, decided on 28.2.2023 has also expressed a similar view that prior compliance of section 154(3) Cr.P.C. is mandatory:
"11. Admittedly, the Respondent made a written complaint-cum-
FIR dated 27 July 2017 to Senior Inspector of D.B. Marg Police Station, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai and other authorities. It was the written complaint-cum FIR addressed to those authorities simultaneously. In short, copies of the complaint dated 27 July 2017 were forwarded to Commissioner of Police, Senior Inspector of Police and other authorities named therein. Phraseology of Section 154(3) undoubtedly indicate that the person aggrieved by refusal on the part of Officer In charge of a Police Station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned. As such, Section 154(3) comes into play only after Officer In charge of the concerned Police Station refuses to record the information given to him. Admittedly, nothing of that sort has happened in the present case. The Respondent, admittedly, forwarded his complaint dated 27 July 2017 to D.B. Marg Police Station and Commissioner of Police at one and the same time. As such, if it is taken that the Officer In charge of the D.B. Marg Police Station refused to record the information RAKESH given by the Respondent then the Respondent has not taken KUMAR recourse to Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. SINGH 12. In case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), it has been observed Digitally signed by RAKESH in para 26 and 27 as under:
KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:28:57 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 10 of 17"26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that RAKESH an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an KUMAR affidavit so that the person making the application should be SINGH conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will Date: 2023.04.18 17:29:05 +0530 be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 11 of 17 him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/latches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
13. In case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP & Ors., it has been observed in para 11 and 26 as under:
"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
RAKESH KUMAR 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been SINGH registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach Digitally signed by RAKESH the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:29:13 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 12 of 17 other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?"
14. Admittedly, there is non-compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case has observed that for taking recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 153(4) and 154(3) is the condition precedent. Since such compliance is not there, the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Application No.9 of 2019 is liable to be set aside."[Emphasis supplied]
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RCC Infraventures Ltd and Others vs State Of Haryana and Another, CRM-M-12913-2022 (O&M) decided on 31 May, 2022 has also held that the requirement of prior compliance of Section 154 (3) CrPC is mandatory.
18. The above quoted judgments clearly lay down that prior compliance of Section 154(3) CrPC and supporting affidavit along with the application U/s 156(3) CrPC are mandatory in nature and must be complied with.
RAKESH 19. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent relying upon M/s KUMAR SINGH Sujan Multiports (supra) and TVF Media Labs Pvt. Ltd.
Digitally signedby RAKESH (supra), argued that the requirement is not a pre-condition. I KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 17:29:23 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 13 of 17 have perused these judgments. So far as the first judgment is concerned, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court opined that the condition of affidavit is not mandatory but was introduced to tackle the misuse of the provision of Section 156(3) CrPC. So far as the second judgment is concerned, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi indicated that the word used in the provision is "may" and further the complainant therein has already approached the higher authority i.e., ACP. I am of the view that since Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in the absence of affidavit, the Magistrate cannot entertain the application U/s 156(3) CrPC, other judgments need not be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Babu Venkatesh and Others vs State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 252 of 2022, decided on 18.2.2022 was dealing with a case in which a complaint was filed before the police, however, no FIR had been registered and thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court which directed the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case held that :
"25. This court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
26. This court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and RAKESH also verify the veracity of the allegations. The court has noted KUMAR that, applications under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. are filed SINGH Digitally signed by in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to RAKESH KUMAR SINGH harass certain persons.
Date: 2023.04.18 17:29:35 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 14 of 17
27. This court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. This court emphasizes the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.
29. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant/respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra), and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint".[Emphasis supplied]
20. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no supporting affidavit along with the application U/s 156(3) CrPC. Therefore, the aforesaid Judgment of Babu Venkatesh (supra) has to be followed in terms of 'doctrine of precedent'.
21. Further, to show prior compliance of Section 154(3) CrPC, the respondents have placed on record before the Ld. Magistrate RAKESH KUMAR Court a visitor's slip dated 15.07.2019 regarding their visit to the SINGH Joint CP at Delhi Police Headquarters and also placed on record a Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH complaint dated 30.07.2019 received by the DCP, South District, Date: 2023.04.18 17:29:43 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 15 of 17 Delhi. Section 154 (3) CrPC requires that any person who is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to register an FIR should send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police. Hence, a mere visitors' slip will not amount to due compliance as mandated under Section 154(3) CrPC. Further, the complaint dated 30.07.2019 received at the DCP, South District Office has been filed after filing of the application U/s 156(3) CrPC before the Ld. Magistrate's court. Hence, there has been no prior compliance of Section 154(3) CrPC by the respondents.
22. Ld. Counsel for the respondent also argued that once an FIR is registered, revision cannot be maintained. However, I am of the view that this argument has no merit at all. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nishu Wadhwa vs. Siddharth Wadhwa, (2017) 236 DLT 612 has held that revision petition is maintainable against order passed U/s 156 (3) CrPC and it has nowhere created any distinction between situations where FIR has already been registered on order and where the order of the Magistrate has not been acted upon. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, once primary action is declared void, all consequential actions would fall through for the reasons that illegality strikes at the root. Clearly, therefore, once order of the Ld. Magistrate is set aside, the consequential FIR will not exist. The present revision is clearly maintainable.
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH
23. In view of the above mentioned reasons, I am of the Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH opinion that the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the Date: 2023.04.18 17:29:52 +0530 Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 16 of 17 order dated 01.10.2019 needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, this order shall not come in the way of complainant again approaching the Ld. Magistrate with a fresh application upon compliance of legal requirements.
24. Trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
25. Revision File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THIS 18th DAY OF APRIL, 2023 Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.04.18 SINGH 17:30:03 +0530 (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI Cr. Rev. Nos.388/2019 Rachit Goel. vs. State & Ors. Page 17 of 17