Delhi District Court
Prateek Gupta vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 13 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Petition No. 306/2023
CNR No. DLST01-007843-2023
Prateek Gupta
S/o Sh. Anil Gupta
R/o 201, Hauz Khas Apartment,
Sri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi - 110016.
.....REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Nandini Jai Singh @ Nandini Shah
D/o Mrs. Khushi Singh Shah
R/o H.No. 504, Marigold-1E,
Near RBK School, Chandan Shanti,
Sec-15, Poonam Garden, Mira Bayandar West,
Mira Road, Mumbai - 400107
....RESPONDENTS
Date of Filing : 16.08.2023
Arguments Heard : 16.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.05.2024
ORDER
1. Revisionist Prateek Gupta, aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2023 assailed it by invoking the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court, whereby his complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC was CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 9 dismissed by Ld. MM-05, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Through the instant order, I shall dispose of the revision so filed under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record and relevant provisions of law.
3. The plea of the revisionist is that in the month of September 2019, respondent no. 2 asked the revisionist to give her Rs. 2,00,000/- and assured him to return the said amount within 3 months. On believing and assuring respondent no.2, the revisionist gave her Rs.2 Lakhs in September, 2019. After expiry of 3 months, the respondent showed her inability to return the money instead she further requested to grant her Rs. 2 Lakhs and she assured that she will return the total amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs within a period of 6 months. However, the respondent no. 2 did not pay back the said amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a complaint at PS Hauz Khas and the complaint was marked to IO HC Bharat Lal but the IO did not take any action and sat silently in the name of the investigation. The accused started mentally torturing and pressurizing the revisionist with her false accusations and complaints. In the month of October, the accused gave a death threat to the revisionist on the instagram through her insta id. Thereafter, the revisionist filed another complaint against the accused on 01.11.2020 vide diary no. 40 dated 01.11.2020. No inquiry or investigation was conducted by PS Hauz Khas and the DD was CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 9 closed by IO HC Bharat Lal in collusion with the accused. IO HC Bharat Lal was following the instagram id of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. A false ATR was filed in August, 2021 and after which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Trial Court. The complainant led pre-summoning evidence and argued on the complaint, Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the complaint of the revisionist under Section 203 Cr.P.C. In the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the present revision came into existence.
4. The revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the impugned order is bad in law as well as contrary to the procedure established by law ; that the learned Trial Court without appreciating the relevant facts and material placed on record dismissed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without any rhyme and reasons ; that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate Ex. CW1/5 i.e. messages from the accused from her instagram id regarding death threats given to the revisionist; that the learned Trial Court ignored all the facts, evidence, documents and exhibits and passed the impugned order erroneously and miserably failed to appreciate the evidence and law; that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420, 506 IPC which have been duly explained in the CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 9 evidence and exhibits. Hence, the revisionist has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2023. In support of his contention, the revisionist has relied upon the following judgments :
a) N. Devindrappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 5 SCC 228
b) Ram Lal Narand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322.
c) India Carat (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (1989) 2 SCC 132.
d) Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736.
e) Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663.
f) Vinubhai Haribhai Malvaiya Vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 10 SCC 537.
g) Vijayander Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 389.
h) Lee Kun Hee Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 3 SCC 132.
5. Reply to the revision has been filed by the respondent no.
2. It is stated that the revision filed by the revisionist bears no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The revisionist had filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to create his defence against heinous crime of rape, sexual harassment, blackmailing and under Section 67, IT Act. No case of cheating as well as recovery is maintainable against the respondent no. 2 as the true facts and dispute between the parties herein are different from what the revisionist has narrated in his complaint. The revisionist is a practicing advocate and he forcibly wanted to be in a relationship CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 9 with the respondent no. 2. The revisionist has not come with clean hand neither before this Court nor before Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition be dismissed.
6. Rejoinder has been filed by the revisionist. In the rejoinder, the revionist has denied the averments made by the respondent no. 2 in the reply and has reiterated the facts as stated in his petition.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned has caused great miscarriage of justice and dismissed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. without any rhyme and reasons. It is submitted that the revisionist shall suffer irreparable loss if this revision petition is not allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Trial court has passed a well reasoned order and there is no requirement to interfere in the same. It is submitted that the revisionist has tried to mislead the Court. The present revision is filed by the revisionist just to escape himself from the crime of rape and sexual harassment. The revisionist had blackmailed the respondent and raped her in Radisson Blue, Faridabad on 10.02.2019 and various times, he tried to make forceful physical relations with her. The revisionist cannot take benefits of his own wrongdoings. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 99. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the record.
10. The scope and ambit of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to the extent of ascertaining and examining an order of finding on the scales of correctness, legality or propriety or to see that there is no irregularity in the proceedings.
10. It is observed in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Karan Mehdu AIR 2017 SC 796 that the scope of this provision U/s.397 Cr.P.C. is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceedings.
12. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, it was observed that the revisional court is empowered to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. Object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. It is, thus, evident that revision has a limited scope to examine the record/findings on the aforesaid parameters.
13. In the case of "Mitesh Kumar J. Shah Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (decided on 26.10.2021), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:
"Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 9 contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety."
14. It is pertinent to mention here that in Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2010) 170 DLT 516, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "... in those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. The 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 allegation 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." Another landmark judgment touching the facts of this case is of M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State, 2001 IV AD Delhi 625 wherein the court has observed that the power of directing the police to register a case and initiate investigation under section 156(3) Cr. PC should be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. When field investigation by the police is not required and complainant is in a position to collect and produce evidence in the court, order for registration of FIR need not be passed.
15. In the present case, the respondent no. 2 has filed certain chats along with her reply to the revision which are stated to be chats with the revisionist. One chat is shown to be of Pratik. In this CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 9 chat, there are various long whatsapp messages which are full of filthy and abusive language. The respondent has also filed a group chat in which there is an anonymous message in which the mobile number of a girl shown in the photo is mentioned and thereafter, filthy and sexual language is used with the image. Counsel for respondent no. 2 has argued that the revisionist has tried to blackmail her and posted her photos on various websites. Similarly, on the other hand, the revisionist has also brought on Trial Court record some messages shown to be sent by the respondent no. 2 wherein she is also using filthy language and giving threats to the revisionist. However, from the said messages, it is not proved that actually the messages were sent or they were edited or they were sent to each other. Moreover, the Court is not required to go into the parties personal matter but it must be mentioned that despite being a practicing advocate, the kind of language, the revisionist has used while chatting with the respondent is highly depreciable.
16. All the allegations are oral in nature and nothing is required to be dug out during investigation in support of the allegations made by the complainant. Moreover, the case is of purely civil in nature as has been rightly observed by the learned Trial Court. The revisionist has remedies available under the civil law. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, the revisionist could not establish prima facie that there is any criminal case made out against the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any intervention. As a result, I find no CR No. 306/2023 Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 8 of 9 illegality, impropriety or flaw in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.
17. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
18. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (MADHU JAIN)
th
on 13 May 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge,
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 306/2023
Prateek Gupta Vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 9