Delhi District Court
Ram Niwas Gupta vs State on 26 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
SPECIAL JUDGEIII (PC ACT), CBI, NORTHWEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Crl.Rev.No. 49919/2016
1. Ram Niwas Gupta
S/o Late Sh. B.L. Gupta
R/o H.No.170, Deepali Enclave,
Pitampura, New Delhi110034 ....Revisionist
Vs.
1. State
2. Smt. Saroj Jindal
W/o Sh. Dinesh Jindal
R/o H.No. 392, Deepali Chowk,
New Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of institution : 28.10.2016 Date of reserving the order : 22.11.2016 Date of order : 26.11.2016 ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the revision petition filed by the revisionist against the order dated 17.10.2016 and impugned order dated 24.10.2016 respectively passed by the court of Ld. MM, herein after called the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 and other impugned order dated 24.10.2016 respectively.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of the CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 present revision are that pending investigation in FIR No.1794/2014, dated 30.09.2014, PS Mangol Puri, New Delhi filed by the complainant (herein arrayed as respondent no. 2 in revision petition), an application was moved by the complainant before the court of Ld. MM for monitoring investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was averred in the application that despite the fact that the investigation was in progress for the last several months, it was moving at a very slow pace and was not being conducted properly. It was also urged before the court of Ld. MM that the pending investigation for so much long time creates doubt in the mind of the complainant with respect of the conduct of the investigating officers. It was prayed in the said application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C that necessary directions may be issued for monitoring the investigation and for passing the necessary orders to expedite the investigation.
3. Notice to the IO was issued of the said application. IO filed a status report. The IO detailed down and furnished the status of the investigation in the status report as mentioned in the impugned order dated 17.10.2016. The IO informed the court of Ld. MM that the accused Ram Niwas Gupta (herein revisionist before this court) has not joined the investigation and no arrest was made till that day.
4. Expressing displeasure over the manner and mode of CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 investigation and after referring to the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kanwar Sain Gupta VS NCT of Delhi & Ors. Criminal MC No. 2621/12 dated 21.07.2016, Ld. MM issued notice to DCP (O), and the concerned ACP and SHO with direction to disclose if they have complied with the aforesaid instructions given in the Standing Order. These notices were issued by the court of Ld. MM vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 vide which the Ld. MM had issued notices is runs as under: "Issue notice to the DCP (O) and the concerned ACP and SHO with direction to disclose if they have complied with the instructions given in the aforementioned Standing Order. Copy of this order be sent alongwith notices.To come up on 24.10.2016. Copy of this order be given dasti to the husband of the complainant, as prayed for."
Thereafter, vide the other impugned order dated 24.10.2016 DCP filed a report and IO submitted that since the proposed accused Ram Niwas Gupta (herein revisionist in this revision petition) is not traceable and is evading arrest, he has filed an application before the court of Ld. MM for seeking NBW against accused Ram Niwas Gupta CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 (herein revisionist in this revision petition). In the impugned order dated 24.10.2016, the Ld. MM questioned the SHO w.r.t different guidelines laid down in the aforementioned judgment. The DCP in his report also informed the court of Ld MM that guidelines in the aforementioned Standing Order were being meticulously complied with. Finally vide impugned order dated 24.10.2016, Ld. MM passed the following order : "Issue notice to the DCP with direction to disclose if on receiving the aforementioned request of the IO/SHO for seeking further time to complete investigation, he examined the reasons of delay as well as the case file and after satisfying himself that sufficient steps were taken by the IO to complete investigation, he accorded further time for completing investigation or took necessary corrective steps. The DCP shall also disclose if he was submitted the monthly report as referred to in instruction no.25. Copy of this order be sent alongwith the notice."
5. Aggrieved, the accused Ram Niwas Gupta (herein revisionist) approached this court. Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Niwas Gupta argued that no opportunity of being heard was given to him by the court of Ld. MM and CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 the investigating officer is himself dealing the investigation at his own whims. He further stated that IO is posing him as a villain when the revisionist /accused was continuously visiting the PS. He further stated that the IO and police officers are misleading the court and IO is trying to get adverse order against him. It was also urged that documents of the accused are not being taken by the court on record. He further stated that the accused has also right to join the proceedings in the court if anything comes up against him during investigation.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2, suo motto attended the proceedings without notice. He stated that he was not willing to file any reply but wanted to place his stand on the revision petition. He stated that this revision petition is not maintainable as the revisionist has not locus standi. He also informed this court that the anticipatory bail application of the accused was dismissed by the court of Sh. Sunil Aggarwal, Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts. It was also highlighted that the revisionist wants to obtain order from this court in order to misuse the same as his bail application was already dismissed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist responded that his bail application was pending when this revision petition was filed.
CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9
8. Ld. APP for the State argued that the revisionist has no locus standi.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Ld. APP for the State. I have also carefully perused the record.
10.No doubt Magistrate is empowered to monitor the investigation in case he satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done or is not being done by the police in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P. & Ors. Decided on 07.12.2007, Appeal (Crl.) 1685 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down dictum which is as under:
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are ncessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.c, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 for ensuring a proper investigation.
18. It is wellsettled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means are essentially necessary to its execution.
Accordingly, it is clear that the Magistrate is empowered to monitor the investigation and in the present case he has acted well within his powers.
11. Now the question is whether the revisionist/accused has locus standi to challenge both the impugned orders vide which directions were given to the police to comply with the standing orders. From the bare perusal of the impugned orders it is categorically clear that no coercive orders against the accused has been passed. Ld. MM has simply issued notices to the DCP and other police officers seeking CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 their explanation w.r.t to the compliance of the Standing order as contained in the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kanwar Sain Gupta Case (supra) for proper investigation. From the bare perusal of both the impugned order one may find nothing to suggest that Ld MM was in any way bias against the accused. Ld. MM was simply concerned about the mode and manner of the investigation whatever the result of the investigation may be and accordingly, he had called for and sought report from the different police officers.
12.The only grudge of the revisionist is that the IO had informed the Ld. MM that he was going to seek NBW against him as the accused was not traceable. It was simply a submission before the Ld. MM. The IO had tried to justify the delay before the court of Ld. MM by reasoning out the same by making such submissions. One may sniff from the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has more grudge against the IO rather than orders of the court. The anticipatory bail application of the revisionist /accused is already stated to have been dismissed by the court of Sessions. Hence arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant that possibility can't be ruled out that the revisionist might have been trying to evade investigation by obtaining order from this court which he may twistly CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9 present before the police to hamper investigation cannot be rejected.
13.Accordingly, the revisionist has no locus standi to file the present revision petition as the Ld. MM was simply following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for direction to the police for expediting the investigation during the course of monitoring the same.
14. With these observations, the present revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost. TCR be sent back alongwith the copy of the order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal) On 26.11.2016. Special JudgeIII (PC Act), CBI Rohini Courts, Delhi CR No.49919/16 Ram Niwas Gupta Vs State & Ors. Page no. 9 of 9