Delhi District Court
Aarti Sharma vs The State on 14 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
ASJ-06 , NDD, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Rev. No. - 504/2022
In the matter of:
Aarti Sharma
D/o Late Sh. D. N. Sharma
R/o E-4, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi. ........ Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
(Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) ....... Respondent
Date of filing of Criminal Revision : 05.09.2022
Date of reserving Order : 15.11.2022
Date of pronouncement of Order : 14.12.2022
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is preferred against order dated 12.08.2022 passed by Ld. MM-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Vide this impugned order charge was directed to be framed against the revisionist / accused for the offences punishable under Section 186/353/332/298 IPC. On the same day charge for the aforementioned offences was framed against the revisionist / accused.
1.1 The revisionist is the accused in the original proceedings. For the sake of convenience and clarity, revisionist shall be referred to as "the accused" in the present case.
1.2 It is pertinent to observe that in the present matter cognizance was taken by the Ld. Trial Court on 16.08.2017. There is nothing on record to ORDER Page..... 1/6 Aarti Sharma Vs. State Cr. Rev. No. 504/2022 show that this order dated 16.08.2017 taking cognizance of the offences was challenged in any manner.
1.3 The charge framed against the accused is being reproduced to mention the brief facts of the case as follows:-
That on 05.05.2014, at about 07:40 AM at S.B. Marg, Maharshi Raman Marg T-Point, Near Khan Market, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Tughlak Road, while Late Ct. Mohd. Farooque was guiding the traffic manually on the instructions of the officials of the control room as the Prime Minister of India had to pass from the area and discharging his functions as a public servant and while doing so, he had instructed the traffic moving from Chidiya Ghar towards Rajesh Pilot Marg to stop at his signal, you flouted the said direction and drove your car make Hyundai Getz bearing registration no. DL-3CAP-5591 despite the directions of the said public servant to not move and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 186 IPC and within the cognizance.
Secondly, on the above said date, time and place while you drove the car in the aforementioned manner, you also started abusing the public servant Late Ct. Mohd. Farooque and while he was trying to reason with you and explain that he was following directions as the PM was to pass through the said route, you suddenly opened your door and hit Lt. Ct. Mohd. Farooque with it due to which he fell down on the road and injured his right hand and you also got down from the car and slapped him 3 to 4 times and passed comments derogatory to his religion after reading his name place and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353/332/298 IPC and within the cognizance.
2. Arguments heard.
2.1 It was submitted on behalf of the revisionist / accused that the present revision petition is filed only on one ground i.e cognizance of the offences was barred in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The complaint filed under ORDER Page..... 2/6 Aarti Sharma Vs. State Cr. Rev. No. 504/2022 Section 195 Cr.P.C by the ACP concerned is not a complaint in terms of the requirement of Section 195 Cr.P.C. In this complaint there is no specific prayer for taking cognizance of the offences. It was further submitted that cognizance should have been taken on the complaint [?]. There has to be a special complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the accused referred to one order dated 17.07.2018 of Ld. Special Judge CBI -02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi wherein it was held that in the absence of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C cognizance of the offences cannot be taken. The court cannot take cognizance of other offences also mentioned in the charge-sheet which are not technically covered under Section 195 Cr.P.C. In "Gurinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State" 1996 (2) C.C. Cases 396 (HC) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C or Section 164 Cr. P.C cannot be treated as complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. In para no. 6 of this judgment it was held that in the absence of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C the entire case gets barred. Part cognizance cannot be taken. In "Kundan Vs. Vasudeo & Anr. Criminal Application No. 4527 of 2016 judgment dated 25.10.2016 Hon'ble Bombay High Court also took the same view. It was held that splitting of different offences separately is not allowed. In the absence of complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C the cognizance of all the offences gets barred.
2.2 It was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Ld. Trial Court has considered all the aspects while passing the impugned order. Order dated 17.05.2022 of the Ld. Trial Court may also be seen.
ORDER Page..... 3/6Aarti Sharma Vs. State Cr. Rev. No. 504/2022 REASONS FOR ORDER
3. It is pertinent to observe that in the present case cognizance was taken by the Ld. Trial Court on 16.08.2017. This order taking cognizance was never challenged. Even in the present revision petition this order is not the impugned order. On the other hand the only point of argument raised on behalf of the accused / revisionist is with regard to the bar to take cognizance in terms of Section 195 Cr. P.C. It is apparent that in the garb of challenging the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 actually order dated 16.08.2017 taking cognizance of the offences is being assailed. This is a tacit challenge to the order dated 16.08.2017 taking cognizance of the offences.
3.1 It is further pertinent to observe that no arguments have been addressed with regard to the framing of charge. As already observed above in the present revision petition, in sum and substance the accused / revisionist is challenging order dated 16.08.2017. The limitation period for challenging this order is already over.
3.2 Ld. Counsel for the revisionist / accused argued that the complaint filed by the ACP concerned is not proper as per Section 195 Cr.P.C. I have perused the complaint dated 13.04.2017 given by the ACP concerned. This complaint was filed before Ld. Trial Court took cognizance. Section 195 Cr.P.C does not prescribe any particular format for filing of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the accused / revisionist argued that cognizance should have been taken on the complaint. It is not clear what is the purport of this argument. If the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist / accused means to say that only complaint can be filed in case of offences covered ORDER Page..... 4/6 Aarti Sharma Vs. State Cr. Rev. No. 504/2022 under Section 195 Cr.P.C and no police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C can be filed in such cases, then such argument is not sustainable. Section 195 Cr.P.C does not envisage that offences covered under Section 195 Cr. P.C can be tried only as a complaint case and not on the basis of a police report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. 3.3 The objective of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C is to prevent the abuse of the law relating to the contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice. Section 195 Cr.P.C is in the form of a safeguard so that except for the authority concerned, who is aggrieved, no other authority or any private person can move the court for such offences. By no stretch of interpretation the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C can be interpreted to place any handicap upon the authorities concerned regarding investigation of such offences by police and filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
3.4 The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist / accused will not apply in the present case. In the referred / cited judgment it can be seen that there was no complaint whatsoever under Section 195 Cr.P.C. In the present case complaint dated 13.04.2017 under Section 195 Cr.P.C was filed before the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offences. As already observed above there is no short coming in the complaint so as to render it otiose.
4. As already observed above no arguments were advanced with regard to the merit of framing of charge. There is nothing much to write about it. The present revision petition is dismissed.
ORDER Page..... 5/6Aarti Sharma Vs. State Cr. Rev. No. 504/2022
5. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the TCR.
6. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 14.12.2022 ASJ-06/NDD/PHC/NEW DELHI
ORDER Page..... 6/6
Aarti Sharma Vs. State Cr. Rev. No. 504/2022