Delhi District Court
Ms Ranjeeta; Aged 26 Years vs State on 23 March, 2018
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS KAVERI BAWEJA
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE05 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 73/2018
Ms Ranjeeta; Aged 26 years
D/o Sh. Roop Chand
R/o H. No. 135, Kh. No. 22/25/2
Right Portion, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 3, Hardev Nagar,
Delhi110084
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Maghar Singh
S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh
R/o H. No. 135, KH. No. 22/25/2
Right Portion, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 3, Hardev Nagar,
Delhi110084
....Respondents
Date of Institution: 31.01.2018
Date of Order: 23.03.2018
ORDER
23.03.2018
1. By the present revision petition, above named Petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by Ms Rashmi Gupta, Ld. MM Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr. :2: 09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity) whereby Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the above named Petitioner under Section 156 (3) CrPC praying for registration of FIR against the accused persons.
2. In brief, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that Complainant/Petitioner is a tenant in respect of one room set at H. No. 135, Kh. No. 22/25/2, Hardev Nagar, Delhi. It is the case of the Complainant/Petitioner that on 12.04.2017, she went to Haryana at her native place after locking the tenanted premises and when she returned back on 16.04.2017, she found that her household articles, cash worth Rs. 20,000/, jewellery and scooty were missing and on inquiry she came to know that theft had been committed by the accused Maghar Singh, who is the landlord of the tenanted premises. It is further alleged that Complainant/Petitioner also found the bottles of beer and liquor inside her house. She made complaint regarding the same to PS concerned and higher authorities, but not action was taken.
3. Status report was called in the matter and the same had been filed by ASI Bharat Rattan. As per report, after inquiry, no offence of theft was Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr. :3: found to be committed.
4. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC with the observations that all the facts are within the knowledge of the Complainant and evidence is within her reach and there is no requirement of scientific and technical investigation in the matter. Ld. Trial Court was thus of the view that there is no requirement for issuing directions of registration of FIR and thus application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed.
5. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for Petitioner, who relied upon following judgment in the course of his arguments: Suresh Chand Jain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Legal Eagle (SC) 46
6. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for Petitioner that police is duty bound to register FIR upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. It is submitted that impugned order must be set aside, in as much as Ld. Trial Court failed to direct the Investigating Agency to register FIR in accordance with law.
7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and gone through the record of the case, including the status report filed before Ld. Trial Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr. :4: Court and I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.
8. I am supported in my view by the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. Vs State and Anr. Crl. M. C. No. 612223/2005 DOD 09.07.2010, wherein it has been observed as under: "The Magistrate, when approached with a complaint under Section 200 of the Code, should invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report under Section 202 of the Code.
Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the prerequisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr. :5: to direct police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the Complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of Complainant, and the matter is such which falls for investigation by a State agency."
9. Similarly, in its recent pronouncement Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 781/12 decided on 19.03.2015 reported as Vol. III (2015) SLT 431 observed as under: "A litigant at his own whims 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."
10. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court has observed that it appears that the entire evidence is within the means and knowledge of the Petitioner and there is no requirement of scientific and technical investigation in the matter. On going through the record and the above law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. The Revision Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr. :6: Petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. It is needless to add that the Petitioner shall have an opportunity to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint by way of evidence as per the procedure, as prescribed under law.
12. Let revision file be consigned to Record Room. TCR along with copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court with directions to the Revisionist to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 26.03.2018. Announced in open court today on 23.03.2018 (Kaveri Baweja) Addl. Sessions Judge05 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
23.03.2018 Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr. :7:
Criminal Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State 23.03.2018 Present:
Sh. M. A. KhanLd. Counsel for Accused.
Vide separate detailed order, revision petition filed by above named Petitioner is dismissed.
Let revision file be consigned to Record Room. TCR along with copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance. Revisionist to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 26.03.2018.
(Kaveri Baweja) Addl. Sessions Judge05 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
23.03.2018 Crl. Revision No. 73/2018 Ranjeeta Vs State and Anr.