Delhi District Court
Sonu Gautam @ Amit Kumar vs Prasad Saheb on 27 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03(NE) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Cr. R. No.02/12
Unique ID No.02402R0053262012
Sonu Gautam @ Amit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Bal Kishan
R/o 1/3924, Gali no. 1, Bhagwanpur Khera,
Shahdara, Delhi. ..... Revisionist
Vs.
1. Prasad Saheb
2. Ashu
3. Khanna
4. Sanjay Kaul
5. Unknown person
Officials of the M/s. Impact Communication, C55,
3rd floor, Preet Vihar, Delhi.
6. An unknown three wheeler Driver of TSR
No. DL1RF0702. (An associate of accused no. 1 to 5)
7. An unknown person already sitting on the back seat of TSR vide
no. DL1RF0702. (An associate of accused no. 1 to 6)
8. Woman Duty officer concerned
P.S Mansarovar Park/ GTB Enclave, whatever applicable,
located at the East Foot Print of the Shahdara flyover, North
East District, Delhi.
9. Concerned Reader to SHO
PS Mansarovar Park/ GTB Enclave, whatever applicable,
Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.1 of 7
located at the East Foot Print of the Shahdara flyover, North
East District, Delhi.
10. Joint Commissioner of Police concerned
New Delhi Range, Headquarters Delhi Police,
Indra Prastha Estate, New Delhi.
11. Authorized Signatory/concerned police official, who has signed
and issued the notice, having a mobile phone vide no.
9868037968.
Office of the Inspector PG Cell, Opposite DCP/NE office
Complex, Seelampur, Delhi53.
12. Ranbir Singh A police personnel,
PS Preet Vihar, East District, Delhi.
..... Respondents
ORDER:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of a criminal revision petition u/s 397 Cr PC for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.11.11 in the complaint case no. 12412/11 titled as Sonu Gautam @ Amit Kumar Vs. Prasad Saheb etc passed by Sh. Ankur Jain, Ld. MM, North East District, KKD Courts, Delhi.
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel Mr. Lal Bahadur Pandey for the revisionist and gone through the entire record including the order passed by the trial court.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the revisionist was working with M/s Impact Communication since 13.10.10 as a Supervisor at the salary of Rs.5000/ per month and was out of station for office Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.2 of 7 work along with a advertising vehicle and after about one month of long tour to Calcutta, on 24.12.10 he returned to Delhi and during the said tour the revisionist incurred expenses of about Rs. 15,000/. Thus an amount of Rs. 22,500/ was due towards the company.
4. On 18.1.11 at about 5.00 PM revisionist visited the office of his employer i.e M/s Impact Communication. However, respondent no. 1 Prasad Saheb involved him in some discussion on several topics till 8.00 pm and at the end of the discussion, respondents no. 1 to 5 got together and started beating the revisionist with fist and legs as a result of which he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness they threatened to kill him and made him write on two papers. Thereafter accused no. 2 gave a cheque of Rs. 22,000/ to the revisionist and told that there was no outstanding amount further. Thereafter, accused no. 2 forcibly put him into a three wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DL1RF0702 in which an unknown person was already seated on the backside of the same and some unknown person was driving it. Thereafter, accused no. 2 and the unknown person sitting on the back seat caught his hair and hit his head with something as a result of which he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness at about 6.00 am next day he found himself lying in the Ramleela Ground behind the petrol pump, GTB Enclave, Delhi93. The revisionist approached Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.3 of 7 police station M. S Park but the accused no. 8 and 9 absolutely neglected to listen to the revisionist and even refused to receive his written complaint and talked with him in unparliamentary language.
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the report was called by the Ld.MM on the complaint in which it was reported that the revisionist failed to join the inquiry despite several notices. The cheque issued to the revisionist by company was also verified at Bank of India, Mayur vihar and found that said cheque was of Sh. Fateh Singh and the account was closed on 07.08.07 and was not issued by any officials of the company. If revisionist found himself unconscious at Ram Leela ground on 19.7.11 at 6.00 am, he would have called the local police so that he could be admitted to GTB hospital. The conduct of the revisionist showed that he was habitual of making complaints.
6. Vide order dated 17.11.11 Ld. MM dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr PC observing as under: "I am of the view that allegations as set out in the complaint do not require any investigation from the police and complainant can very well adduce the evidence in support of his allegations.
Since, identity of the accused has been established by the complainant, there is no requirement of technical evidence for which Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.4 of 7 investigation is required. Hence, application u/s 156 (3) Cr PC stands dismissed."
7. The order passed by Ld. MM has been challenged on the ground that order passed by Ld. MM is erroneous, bad in the eyes of law and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is further stated that the trial court wrongly appreciated that the allegations set out in the complaint do not require any investigation. It is further stated that it is apparent that entire evidence cannot be produced/ adduced by the complainant himself and for the same an investigation by a competent authority is absolutely required in the matter . That there has to be investigation on the point regarding issuance of cheque of Rs. 22,000/. The investigating agency is required to trace out two papers on which signatures of the revisionist was obtained forcibly. There are unknown persons involved in the commission of crime. One of the official of M/s Impact Communication was not known to the revisionist and the person who was sitting on the back seat of TSR was unknown and police is required to investigate the same. It is also stated that three wheeler scooter has to be seized and no sanction is required to be obtained in respect of the police official u/s 197 Cr PC as their acts did not fall in the category of discharge of duties.
8. Before proceeding further I would like to refer to M/s Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.5 of 7 Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd. Vs. State, 2001 AD (Delhi) 625 wherein it has been observed by the court that : "10. Section 156 (3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those cases where the same are warranted. The section empower the Magistrate to issue directions in this regard but this provision should not be permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police cases registered even in those cases which are not very serious in nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required. Therefore a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an order under section 156 (3) of the Code and must not pass these order mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of the complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact."
9. It is well settled that the power u/s 156 (3) Cr PC is totally a discretionary power. Ld. MM has given sufficient reasons for not directing the registration of FIR in the matter. However, Ld. MM Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.6 of 7 has proceeded u/s 200 Cr PC after taking cognizance and has already listed the matter for complainant's evidence. The power of the revisional court is very limited, unless there is some illegality or error in the order passed by Ld. MM, this court cannot interfere with the orders passed by the trial court. I do not find any illegality in the order as evidence is already within the reach of the revisionist and no police investigation/ custodial interrogation is required as the accused persons are already known to the complainant. There are no good grounds for interference with the order passed by Ld. MM. There is no legal ground available for such interference. The order does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to trial court along with TCR. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Nisha Saxena) today on 27.08.12. Additional Sessions Judge03, North East District, KKD, Delhi Criminal Revision No.02/12 page no.7 of 7