Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar vs ) The State (Gnctd) on 18 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
EAST : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Cr. Rev No. 119/2019
Satish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Mahavir Singh,
R/o 5 L,Pocket2, MIG Complex,
Mayur Vihar Phase3,
Delhi110096. .........Petitioner
Versus
1) The State (GNCTD)
Through Police Station New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi.
2) Khushboo Singh,
W/o Sh. Abhishek Singh,
3) Abhishek Singh,
S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh Chauhan,
Respondent no. 2 & 3
R/o Flat No. 005, TowerR,
Amrapali Silicon City, Sector76,
Noida, Gautambuddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh201301. ..........Respondents
Cr. Rev. No. 119/2019 Page no. 1/5
Date of Institution : 27.05.2019
Date of reserving Judgment : 26.11.2019
Date of pronouncement : 18.01.2020
Appearances
For the petitioner : Sh. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the respondent no.1 : Sh. Ajit Kumar Srivastava,
Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State.
For the respondents no. 2 & 3 : None
JUDGMENT:
1. A revision petition under Section 397/399/400 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed against the order dated 17.05.2019 ("the impugned order") passed by the Court of Ld. ACMM (East), Karkardooma court, Delhi in the complaint case No. 4002/18 titled as "Satish Kumar v. Khushboo Singh & Another"
whereby an application of the petitioner u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of the FIR against the respondents no. 2 and 3 was dismissed. A certified copy of the impugned order was filed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
2. After filing of the revision petition, Ld. Prosecutor accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Notice of the revision petition was not issued to respondents no. 2 and 3.
Cr. Rev. No. 119/2019 Page no. 2/5
3. I have heard the arguments from parties and perused the record.
4. As per the record, the petitioner filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith one application U/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. titled as "Satish Kumar v. Khushboo Singh & Another" bearing CC No. 4002/18 before the Ld. ACMM wherein vide impugned order application U/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. In the said complaint, petitioner has levelled allegations that he has filed a Suit bearing no. CS(OS) 668/17 for injunction, damages, defamation and other damages in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the respondents no. 2 & 3 and on 11.04.2018 both the respondents filed a written statement alongwith certain documents, containing eleven emails dated 31.11.2017, 01.11.2017 and 08.11.2017 shown to have been sent from the email ID i.e. [email protected]. and [email protected]. Petitioner alleged that the said emails have never been produced in any of the proceedings or correspondence with anyone and the same has been leaked/received by hacking the email ID of the complainant and have been sent to third party without his consent. Thereby both the respondents have committed offences punishable u/s 420/381/380/34/120B IPC r/w Section 43/66/66D of the Information Technology Act 2000. Copies of aforesaid emails have been filed alongwith the complaint before the Ld. Trial Court.
Cr. Rev. No. 119/2019 Page no. 3/5
5. It is an admitted fact that previous litigations are going on between the parties. Complainant got registered two FIRs against respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e. FIR No. 755/2017, u/s 67A of the Information Technology Act 2000 at PS New Ashok Nagar and another FIR bearing No. 21/2018 dated 09.01.2018 u/s 420/406 IPC at PS Sector58, Noida, UP. Complainant/petitioner has filed a Suit bearing no. CS(OS) 668/17 for injunction, damages, defamation and other damages in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the respondents no. 2 & 3. While respondent no. 2 has got registered FIR No. 90/2018, u/s 376(2)(f)/506 IPC against the present petitioner/complainant.
6. From perusal of the complaint filed before the Ld. Trial Court, it is apparent that in the entire complaint the facts pertaining to the FIR No. 755/17 PS New Ashok Nagar have been mentioned and only two short paras have been devoted to mere allegations for violation of Information Technology Act.
7. A bare perusal of copies of those emails would reveal that same have been shown to have been sent from the email account of the complainant to different parties. Only bald allegations have been Cr. Rev. No. 119/2019 Page no. 4/5 made by the complainant and in present revision petition also, it has not been shown why and in what manner police investigation is required. Vide impugned order the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed with observation by the Ld. Trial Court that after leading CE, if the need arises, an inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. may be conducted. The exercise of discretion by the ld. Trial Court in not ordering registration of the FIR is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances.
8. In the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity, illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the Learned Trial Court.
9. The present revision petition is accordingly devoid of merits and is dismissed.
10. TCR be sent back with copy of judgment.
11. File be consigned to Record Room. KULDEEP order Digitally signed by KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Location: East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2020.01.18 16:26:52 +0530 (Pronounced in the open Court (KULDEEP NARAYAN) on 18.01.2020) Additional Sessions Judge04 East District, Court No. 10 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 119/2019 Page no. 5/5