Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Prem Parkash vs Suman Lata on 24 July, 2018

             IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR­I, 
           ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­05, SHAHDARA,
                 KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.

Cr. Rev. No. 23/18 (I.D. No. 113/2018)

In the matter of :           

Prem Parkash
S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand
R/o 226/1, (GF), Dungar Mohalla
Farsh Bazar, Trunk Waliband Gali 
Shahdara, Delhi­110032

                                                              ........Revisionist

                                           VERSUS

1.Suman Lata
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o 226/1, (FF), Dungar Mohalla
Farsh Bazar, Trunk Waliband Gali 
Shahdara, Delhi­110032               
2. Surender Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Khem Chand
Also At Both 
R/o 226/1, (FF), Dungar Mohalla
Farsh Bazar, Trunk Waliband Gali 
Shahdara, Delhi­110032
3. DGM Jhilmil CBD­III
The BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Shakti Kiran Building
Karkardooma Delhi­110032
4. Business Manager (Division Jhilmil)
The BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Shakti Kiran Building
CBD­III, Annexure Building
Opp. Aggarwal Funcity Mall


Cr. Rev. No. 23/18 (I.D. No. 113/2018)                                    Page 1 of 5 pages
 Karkardooma Delhi­110032
5. The Head Customer Care (BYPL)
The BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Shakti Kiran Building
Karkardooma Delhi­110032
6. State, GNCT of Delhi
Through Public Prosecutor 

                                                                   .....Respondents 

Revision Petition Date of Institution of Revision : 10­05­2018 Date of  hearing arguments : 23­07­2018 Date of Disposal  : 24­07­2018 ORDER       The   present   revision   petition   has   been   filed   by   the revisionist  Sh.  Prem   Prakash   against     the   impugned   order   dated 22.03.2018   passed   by   Court   of   Sh.   Prayank   Nayak,   Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate­02, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which the application of the revisionist (complainant) Under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 

Arguments considered. File perused. 

It  has  been  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  revisionist  that  the  order passed   by   the   Ld.   Trial   Court   is   erroneous,   illegal,   arbitrary improper and perverse as the Ld. Trial court has failed to take into consideration   the   entire   contents   of   the   complaint   which   clearly shows   that   accused   no.   1   had   got   transferred   the   electricity connection in connivance with the accused no. 2 to 5 on the basis of Cr. Rev. No. 23/18 (I.D. No. 113/2018)                       Page 2 of 5 pages forged documents  and as such cognizable offence Under  Section 406/420/467/468/471/506   IPC   are   made   out   against   the respondents   herein   (accused   in   the   complaint)   and   it   has   been further mentioned in the complaint that the complainant also made a request to accused no. 3 to 5 ( respondent no. 3 to 5 herein) to make clarification of transfer of the electricity connection without NOC of the revisionist but the departments failed to give any reply as   such   the   present   complaint   required   investigation   by   the Investigation   Agency   as   the   electricity   connection   has   been transferred on the basis of forged documents without NOC of the revisionist. 

The   brief   facts   relevant   for   the   disposal   of   the   present   revision petition   are   that   complainant/revisionist   has   alleged   that   the electricity connection bearing K no. 1210115060439 and CRN no. 1210122256  was installed in the premises no. 226/1 Ground Floor, Dungar   Mohalla,   Farsh   Bazar,   Trunk   wali   band   gali,   Shahdara, Delhi­110032   in   his   name   and   he   was   paying   the   bill   but   the respondent no. 1 Suman Lata (accused no. 1 in the complaint) had got the said electricity connection transferred in her name with the accused   no.   2   to   5   illegally   and   unauthorizedly.   The complainant/revisionist made a complaint on 21.09.2011 with the respondent   no.   3   regarding   the   alleged   transfer   of   the   said connection and had made several correspondence with accused no. 3   to   5   in   connection   with   the   transfer   of   the   said   electricity Cr. Rev. No. 23/18 (I.D. No. 113/2018)                       Page 3 of 5 pages connection but of no result. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued that the respondent Suman Lata has got the said electricity connection   transferred   in   her   name   on   the   basis   of   forged   and fabricated   documents   as   such   have   committed   offence   Under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506 IPC and the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly   dismissed   the  application   of  the   revisionist   filed   Under Section   156  (3)   Cr.   P.C.   for   registration  of  the  case   against   the respondents. 

Order   dated   22.03.2018   passed   by   the   Ld.   Trial   Court perused   and   I   find   no   infirmity   or   illegality   in   the   order   dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court as in the present matter the respondents no. 1 and 2 are known to the complainant and the respondents no. 3 to 5 are the officials of the electricity department as   such   the   complainant/revisionist   is   in   position   to   prove   the allegations against the respondents without assistance of the police by   adducing   his   pre­summoning   evidence   as   the   revisionist   can procure the evidence to prove his case by summoning the record from   the   concerned   department   of   respondent   no.   3   to   5   while leading her pre­summoning evidence in the complaint, accordingly no assistance of the police is required to collect any evidence as all the evidence is within the knowledge of the revisionist and there is no such evidence for procurement of which the assistance of the police is required. The revisionist/complainant can not insist for the registration of the case/investigation by the police as a matter of Cr. Rev. No. 23/18 (I.D. No. 113/2018)                       Page 4 of 5 pages right, more particularly where the evidence required to prove the case is well within the knowledge of the complainant/revisionist. As such I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial court has rightly reached the conclusion that the complainant is in a position to prove the allegations  without any assistance of the police and thereby   has   rightly   dismissed   the   application   of   the   revisionist Under   Section   156   (3)   Cr.P.C.   As   such   there   is   no   infirmity   or illegality   in   the   order   dated   22.03.2018   passed   by   the   Ld.   Trial Court, vide which the application of the revisionist Under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC has been dismissed and as such I find no merit in the present   revision   petition.   Consequently,   the   present   revision petition is dismissed. 

The Trial Court record be sent back alongwith copy of this order. 

Revision File  be  consigned  to  Record Room.      

                                                       SUDESH
                                                                Digitally signed by
                                                                SUDESH KUMAR
                                                                Location: delhi
                                                       KUMAR    Date: 2018.07.24
                                                                16:26:58 +0530


                                                  (SUDESH KUMAR­I)
                                                    ASJ­05 Shahdara
                                              Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
                                                       24.07.2018
Announced in the open court
Dated 24.07.2018          


                      




Cr. Rev. No. 23/18 (I.D. No. 113/2018)                                   Page 5 of 5 pages