Delhi District Court
Sangeeta Kaim Singh vs (1)The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.R. No.04/2014
Unique Case ID No.02402R0025592014
Sangeeta Kaim Singh
W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh
R/o P90, Pandav Nagar,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi110091. ... Petitioner
Versus
(1)The State (NCT of Delhi)
(2)Sh. Ratan Lal Singh
(3)Smt. Gyaneshwari
(4)Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh
Respondent No.2 to 4 residents of
P90, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi110091. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.01.2014
Date of order reserved : 16.05.2014
Date of order : 29.05.2014
O R D E R
Vide this order, I shall dispose of a revision petition under section 397/399 Cr.P.C. filed by the CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 1 of 9 revisionist/petitioner against order dated 07.11.2013 passed by Ld. ACMM (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the application of the revisionist/petitioner filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2 Trial Court record has been called. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have gone through the material available on the record. 3 The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that petitioner/complainant and her husband had filed a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.2 to 4herein for commission of offence under section 452/457/341/506/ 201/498A/120B IPC for summoning them as accused. Ld. ACMM called the status report from the concerned Police Station. Ld. ACMM on appreciation of the material placed before her, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and called the petitioner /complainant to adduce presummoning evidence. It is against that order, the present revision petition has been filed. 4 Grounds challenging the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 are that the facts of the FIR No.454/2013 registered against the accused persons are totally different from the facts of the CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 2 of 9 present case; accused persons have committed serious cognizable offences after registration of earlier FIR; accused persons are involved in number of cases; ld. trial court passed the order in haste and did not give opportunity to the complainant to argue; there are serious lapses on the part of police official who acted in connivance with accused persons; status report filed by the police shows the connivance of accused persons and local police and matter requires immediate investigation after registration of FIR. 5 It has been argued by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that when allegations made by the petitioner disclosed commission of cognizable offences, police was duty bound to register FIR. It is further argued that the complaint also disclosed commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons, therefore, Ld. trial court was having no option other than directing the police to register FIR. It is further argued that the facts of the earlier FIR registered against the accused persons are different and the offences committed by the accused persons mentioned in the complaint are subsequent to the registration of earlier FIR.
6 In support of the contentions raised, Ld. counsel has relied upon authorities in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 3 of 9 Ors. MANU/SC/1166/2013 in which it was observed that if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police officer is bound to register an FIR and no preliminary enquiry is permissible. On similar law point, authorities in case of Radha Vs. State of Delhi 2011 (2) JCC 1414; Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409; Ravi Vs. State of Punjab 2005 (1) JCC 516, Hasib Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283 and Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. State 97 (2002) DLT 410.
7 In the present case, the fact remains that it is not necessary that in every case where an application has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime, even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses.
8 The question involved in the present case is with regard to issuance of directions by the Court to the police or taking of cognizance by the Court itself on the application of the petitioners. As per Section 190 of Cr.PC, when a complaint is received, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate can adopt CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 4 of 9 two methods. Firstly, the Magistrate may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, without taking cognizance, to investigate and file a report. Secondly, the Magistrate may take the cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint and conduct proceedings under Section 202 of Cr.PC. In this case, Ld. trial Judge exercised her discretion and instead of adopting former procedure, preferred to take cognizance on the application of the complainants and called upon them to adduce presummoning evidence. 9 I have gone through the ratio of judgment in case titled P. Kannappan versus State of Kerala (Reported in 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 165), in which the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed that the Magistrate can adopt two options when a complaint is filed before him. He may direct the police to investigate and file the report. He may take cognizance and proceed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It is further observed that the complainant has no right to make a demand to refer the case to the police.
10 Similar views have been expressed by their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 1877 in which it was held that the power to direct an investigation to the police is available to CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 5 of 9 the Magistrate both under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and under section 202 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct an investigation by the police is at the precognizance stage while the power to direct similar investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. is at the postcognizance stage. The Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and proceeded with the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is nothing irregular in the manner in which the Ld. Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of 202(2) Cr.P.C., if deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. or proceed in terms of Section 193 Cr.P.C. The said law has been consistently followed in :
(1)Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2001 ( 92) DLT 217. (2)Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. 2001 (I)AD (Crl.) SC 34.
11 Our own Hon'ble High Court has also observed as such in a recent case titled Ravindra Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 403. It was held that remedy under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the words 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that the CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 6 of 9 information reveals commission of cognizable offence/offences and also about necessity of Police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of police. The complainant, as a matter of right, can not insist that the complaint case filed by him/her should be directed in every eventuality to the Police for investigation. 12 In a recent judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case of Subhash Manchanda Vs. State & Anr. 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 495, it has been 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. 13 In the present case also, the Ld. ACMM rejected the prayer made in the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. In the said application, the petitioner made prayer for issuance of direction to the police to investigate the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In my view, a complainant has no right or privilege to ask the Magistrate to refer the case to the police. It is the discretion of the Magistrate, either he can forward the complaint to the police for investigation or he himself can take cognizance and CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 7 of 9 proceed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
14 In the present case, status report filed by the police shows that FIR No.454/2013 u/s 498A/506 IPC had already been lodged against the accused persons. It is further mentioned in the status report that on 21.10.2013, a complaint was received to the effect that the complainants were not allowed to enter their room. In this regard, the Court of Ld. MM passed an order u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act and now the complainants as well as accused persons were living under common roof. It is apparent that the accused persons as mentioned in the complaint are well known to the petitioner. Petitioner is also having the knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the alleged offences and the evidence is in her possession. The evidence can easily be adduced by the petitioner in support of allegations contained in the complaint, so there was no necessity to direct the police to inquire into the allegations. As per the law laid down in the above judgments, the Magistrate is of the discretion either to direct the police to investigate or to himself investigate the allegations by calling the complainant to adduce pre summoning evidence. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner as the same are CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 8 of 9 distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 15 In view of laid down by Superior Courts, impugned order can not be said to be inconsistent with the law. Ld. ACMM can not be said to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with her or exceeded the jurisdiction. Impugned order passed by Ld. ACMM does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Consequently, impugned order is hereby upheld. Resultantly, present revision petition is dismissed.
16 A copy of the order along with Trial Court Record be sent to Trial Court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 29.05.2014 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
CR No.03/2014 Sangeeta Kaim Singh Vs. The State etc. Page 9 of 9