Delhi District Court
Smt. Shakuntla vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 May, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 773/2019
CNR No.: DLCT01-016892-2019
Smt. Shakuntla
W/o Sh. Ram Nath
R/o H. No. 4016/21, Gali Varna,
Basti Mansa Ram, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Sunil @ Khem Chand
3. Kailash
4. Laxmi Narayan
5. Nisha
(Bhabhi of Khem Chand)
6. Maya
(Mother of Kailash)
All Residents of: Gali Varna,
Basti Mansa Ram, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 19.12.2019
Date of Arguments : 05.04.2021
Date of Order : 04.05.2021
ORDER
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 12
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') is directed against order dated 23.05.2019 (the impugned order) arising from the complaint case vide CC No. 19442/2018 titled as 'Shakuntla vs. State & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM-06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the respondent No. 2 to 6.
2. Facts leading to filing of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the respondent No. 2 to 6 on the allegations that on 13.09.2018 at about 12.30 a.m., the respondent No. 2 to 6 came to house of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 uttered abuses to the petitioner and her family members. On hearing the said abuses, the petitioner alongwith her daughter came down at the ground floor of her house. On seeing the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 and 3 pushed the petitioner and her daughter inside their house. The respondent No. 2 to 6 forcibly entered into house of the petitioner and beaten the petitioner and her daughter. The respondent No. 2 to 5 were carrying wooden sticks and the respondent No. 6 shouted 'aaj inhe khatam hi kar dete hain'. The respondent No. 2 and 3 touched the petitioner inappropriately and also tried to disrobe her. At that time, Mr. Kapil, son of the petitioner, also reached there.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 12
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent No 2 to 6 attacked Mr. Kapil with wooden sticks with the intention to kill him. The respondent No. 3 instigated the respondent No. 2 and 4 to kill Mr. Kapil first. On his instigation, the respondent No. 2 attacked Mr. Kapil with a wooden stick on his head. In the process of saving himself, Mr. Kapil suffered a serious hit on his head and suffered fracture in little finger. The respondent No. 2 and 3 robbed an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from Mr. Kapil. On hearing hue and cry of the petitioner and her family members, nearby residents arrived there and on seeing them, the respondent No. 2 to 6 fled from the place of the incident.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's daughter and son were taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital. The petitioner's daughter made call at 100 and police officials from PS Subzi Mandi reached there. The petitioner and her children were provided primary treatment. Police officials of PS Sadar Bazar forced the petitioner to compromise the matter with the respondent No. 2 to 6. The petitioner's husband visited PS Sadar Bazar. However, they had not registered the case. On 10.10.2018 at about 11.15 a.m., the petitioner's husband lodged a complaint with PS Sadar Bazar. In the police station, he was told that the respondent No. 2 has also filed a complaint against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offences and local police has not registered FIR.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 12
5. Therefore, the petitioner filed the said application alongwith the complaint seeking registration of FIR under Section 307/354-B/394/397/452 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC'). The trial Court called the status report. The relevant part of the status report dated 15.04.2019 is as under:
"It is submitted in this regard that on 13.09.2018, a PCR call vide DD No. 22A was received in PS Sadar Bazar regarding a quarrel in Gali Barna, Basti Mansa Ram Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and the same was entrusted to HC Tara Chand. During enquiry, it revealed that there was quarrel between the parties, and three persons got .. injuries in that quarrel. Bhavna W/o Hem Chand, Kapil S/o Sh. Ram Nath and Shivani D/o Ram Nath had got medically examined in Hindu Rao Hospital vide MLC No. 7064/18, 7065/18 and 7066/18 respectively. Wherein Kapil & Shivani belongs to the complainant party and Bhavna belong to alleged party. On the same day, both the parties had settled the matter amicably and given self-hand written letter wherein it is mentioned that there was some dispute over installation of sacred statue of Lord Ganesh and both the parties settled the such issue amicably, and did not want any legal action as both the parties are residing in a same street and they are neighbour to each other. They had also written on the back side of their MLC that they didn't want any action on their MLC. Keeping in view of above said, the PCR call was filed by HC Tara Chand.
After one month, both the parties had given their complaints against each other in Police Station Sadar Bazar, wherein an enquiry has been conducted. During enquiry, neighbours, namely, Smt. Saurav Devi W/o Sh. Gaj Raj, Smt. Sapna W/o Sh Deepak Kumar & Burfy W/o Sh. Om Prakash were examined, and their statements were recorded.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 12 In their statement, they stated that on 13.09.2018, quarrel took place in the street, and no one entered the complainant's house. They did not notice any type of snatching of money incident. On that day, the quarrel and minor commotion took place over installation of sacred statue of Lord Ganesh. (Copies of neighbours' statement are attached herewith for kind perusal).
In view of above facts and circumstances, it revealed that on 13.09.2019, both parties have settled the matter amicably. The allegations are found false and baseless. However, the undersigned is ready to abide by any order / direction passed by Hon'ble Court.
Submitted Please."
6. On examination of the complaint, accompanying documents and arguments of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court, vide order dated 23.05.2019 (the impugned order), dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. Relevant part of the impugned order is as under:
"4. Status report was called and detailed report has been filed by the IO, wherein, it is submitted that on 13.09.2018, a PCR call was received in the PS vide DD No. 22A regarding a quarrel. During enquiry, it was revealed that a quarrel took place between two parties on dispute over installation of sacred statue of God Ganesh, however, the parties settled their dispute amicably and did not want any action. The same was written on the backside of their MLC also. However, after a month, they again made complaints each other, therefore, further enquiry was made and neighbours / independent witnesses were examined, whose statements are annexed with the ATR, who stated that a quarrel took place in the street but no one entered the house of the complainant or snatched any money. Hence, no cognizable offence is made out.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 12
5. I have carefully perused the entire record. The allegations levelled by the complainant though are serious in nature, however, the evidence to prove the same is within her reach and control. Further, no investigation is required in the present matter in view of Judgment of Superior Court titled as 'M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. vs. State', 2002 Cr.L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi) wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that "Section 156 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register case and initiate investigation but this power has to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. Those cases where allegations are not very serious and complainant herself in possession of evidence to prove allegation, there should be no need to pass order u/sec. 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.. But cases where the Magistrate is of the view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before Court, and interest of justice demand that police should step in to help complainant, police assistant can be taken".
6. With this background, the application u/s. 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR stands dismissed. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the complainant to prove his case by leading evidence in his support.
Be put up for PSCE on 05.08.019."
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged the impugned order by way of the criminal revision petition.
8. I have heard Mr. Inderdev Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.S. Malik, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 to 6.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 12
9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from material illegality, legal infirmity and apparent error of law. He submitted that the trial Court has not followed the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P.' (2014) 2 SCC 1. He submitted that the impugned order categorically states that the nature of the allegations levelled by the petitioner are serious whereas Ld. Trial Court relied upon a judgment in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. vs. State (supra) wherein it was held that the cases where allegations are not very serious, there should be no need to pass an order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that there are specific allegations against the respondent No. 2 to 6 regarding commission of offences under Section 354 and 354-B IPC. He submitted that where allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences, it is mandatory for the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to register a FIR. He submitted that the complaint discloses commission of offences pertaining to sexual harassment and the concerned Officer-in-Charge should also be booked for non-performance of his duty under Section 166-A IPC. He submitted that local police connived with the respondent No. 2 to 6 and forced the petitioner and her family members to withdraw the case. He submitted that Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. He submitted that MLC of Mr. Kapil, son of the petitioner evidences that he suffered fracture in his little finger.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 12
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that statements of Ms. Shivani and Mr. Kapil, daughter and son of the petitioner respectively, as mentioned on the rear side of the MLC, that they did not want to pursue the case, were taken by the police under threat. He submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and local police be directed to register FIR against the respondent No. 2 to 6.
11. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 6submitted that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. He submitted that a minor quarrel had taken place on the issue of installation of statue of Lord Ganesha and in that quarrel, Ms. Bhavna, wife of the respondent No. 2 also suffered injury. He submitted that Ms. Bhavna, wife of the respondent No. 2, Mr. Kapil, son of the petitioner and Ms. Shivani, daughter of the petitioner categorically mentioned on the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) that they did not want any action. He submitted that the matter was amicably settled and similar statement was made to police officials of PS Sadar Bazar. He submitted that similarly, a letter was written to SHO, PS Sadar Bazar that the parties have mutually settled the dispute and they did not want any action. He submitted that the allegations made in the complaint and MLC of Ms. Shivani and Mr. Kapil do not disclose any cognizable offence. He submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 12
12. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:
"22.1. The direction under Section 156 (3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.
22.2. The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari may fall under Section 202.
22.3. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from cases to cases."
13. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. vs. State (supra), delineated parameters governing exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate, as under:
"7. It is true that Section 156 (3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. 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.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 12 The discretion ought to be exercised after application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interest of justice demand that the police should step into help the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even under Section 156 (3) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code."
14. In 'Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs. State' 2010 (3) JCC 1972; Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:
"42. Thus, there are pre-requisites to be followed by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code which is discretionary remedy as the provision proceeds with the word 'May'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so. He should pass the orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable 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 the police.
It is thus not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Code the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses, may be with the assistance of the Court or otherwise, ....."
15. On examination of the trial Court record and documents, and arguments addressed, this Court does not find that the impugned order suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material illegality which would occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside.
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 10 of 12
16. It is not mandatory for the Court to direct registration of FIR where the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offence without applying judicial mind. It is evident that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to 6 are neighbourers. The parties are known to each other. The incident was fall out of a minor issue on installation of statue of Lord Ganesha. The petitioner has the evidence in her power and possession. The petitioner does not require assistance of police for collection of evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need of custodial interrogation. It is mentioned on the rear leaf of MLCs of the injured persons that they did not want any action. Similarly, the injured persons submitted an application in writing to SHO, PS Sadar Bazar that they have mutually settled the case and they did not want any action. There is delay of one month in seeking registration of FIR. This is not a fit case for issuing direction for registration of FIR.
17. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
18. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of the present order. Ld. Counsel for the parties be informed about the order telephonically. Order be uploaded on website. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2021.05.07
16:40:24 +0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II
on this 04th May, 2021 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 11 of 12
Shakuntla vs. State & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT010168922019
Crl. Revision No. 773/2019
04.05.2021
Present : Mr. Inder Dev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Malik, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent No. 1.
Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 to 6.
Vide separate order, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMASANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2021.05.07 16:40:01 +0530 Sanjay SharmaII ASJ03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi NK 04.05.2021 Cr. Rev. No. 773/2019 Shakuntla vs. State & Ors. Page No. 12 of 12