Delhi District Court
Nisha vs . Prabhat & Ors. on 17 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF : MS. ANU GROVER BALIGA :
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI [PC ACT]:
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
Criminal Revision No. 18/15
Nisha Vs. Prabhat & Ors.
PS Dwarka South
Nisha (through father)
D/o Sh. Mool Chand
R/o H. No. 90B, Gali No. 4,
Madhu Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi110059
.......................................... Petitioner
Versus
1. Prabhat
S/o Sh. Kishore Dubey
R/o C49, Nangli Vihar,
Baprolla, New Delhi.
2. Sh. R.K Dubey
Principal of Govt. CoEd. Senior
Secondary School, SideI,
Sector6, Dwarka,
New Delhi
3. Kishore Dubey
R/o C49, Nangli Vihar,
Baprolla, New Delhi.
C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 1 of 11
4. State (GNCT of Delhi)
SHO, PS Dwarka South,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
.................................... Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.10.2015.
Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.11.2015.
Date of Order : 17.11.2015.
ORDER:
1. This is a revision petition filed against an order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Ld. MM, Dwarka refusing to direct the registration of FIR on an application made by the petitioner herein under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated as per the assertions made in the revision petition, the petitioner herein is a minor girl studying in Class X in a government school whose left eye has been intentionally permanently damaged allegedly by respondent No. 1, a student of the same school by hitting her left eye with a stone. As per the averments made the Principal of the school arrayed as respondent No. 2, and the father of respondent C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 2 of 11 No. 1 arrayed as respondent No. 3, had allegedly threatened and criminally intimidated the petitioner and her father to compromise the dispute with the respondent No. 1.
3. A perusal of the trial court record shows that the Ld. MM on receiving the complaint filed by the petitioner herein asked for the status report from the SHO and the SHO PS Dabri through the concerned IO then filed a status report verifying the factum of the incident and also reporting therein that the matter had been once compromised between the parties.
4. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. MM interalia, observed that though primafacie certain cognizable offences are made out against the accused persons the court is not inclined to direct registration of FIR as all the evidence is in possession of the complainant and therefore after taking cognizance of the complaint, the Ld. MM listed the case for complainants evidence.
5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that the Ld. MM appeared to have been swayed by the fact that the complainant/petitioner herein had once compromised the dispute with the C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 3 of 11 respondents and therefore declined to order investigation in the present case. According to Ld. Counsel immediately after the eye of the petitioner had been damaged by the respondent No. 1, he and his father i.e respondent No. 3 herein came to the school and along with the Principal of the school, respondent No. 2 pressurized the father of the complainant/petitioner to settle the matter with them and gave Rs. 15,000/ and also assured the father of the complainant/petitioner that respondent No. 3 will bear all the future expenses if any, of further medical treatment that might be required. It is the averment of the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel that under pressure from the respondents the father of petitioner at that point of time accepted Rs. 15,000/ but was shocked when the Eye Surgeon who examined the eye of his daughter opined that the vision of the eye of the complainant had gone permanently and the respondents on being informed of the same refused to take any responsibility for the same and on the other hand, threatened that in case the petitioner and her father make any police complaint she will be rusticated from the school. Thus, according to Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the father of the petitioner had at one time compromised the dispute with the respondents is a irrelevant fact and therefore, his grievance is that the Ld. MM should have ordered investigation of the complaint. It is also the contention of Ld. Counsel C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 4 of 11 that the observations of the Ld. MM that the entire evidence required to be produced in this case is in possession of the complainant/petitioner is completely incorrect and without any basis. Ld Counse has submitted that admittedly the incident had been witnessed by many classmates of the petitioner and that therefore their statements are very necessary to be recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and the said classmates cannot at all be stated to be under the control of the complainant. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that the Ld. MM has failed to also take notice of the fact that the injury received by the complainant/petitioner herein will have to be examined by a doctor of a government hospital for obtaining the opinion with respect to the nature of the injury and that no government doctor can be stated to be under control of the complainant and it is only the investigating agency of the State which is in a position to obtain such opinion. He therefore, has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
6. Ld Addl. PP for the State Sh. S.K Berwal in reply to the contentions made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has only submitted that the order of Ld. MM is a speaking order and he does not wish to add anything thereon. However, Ld. Counsels appearing for the other respondent persons have vehemently contended that all the assertions made by the petitioner in the present petition are false and baseless. In C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 5 of 11 particular, Ld Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 Sh. A.K. Pandey has submitted that respondent No. 1 was not at all involved in the incident and the entire incident has been concocted by the complainant in order to extort more money from the respondents No. 1 and 3. On behalf of respondent No. 2, the submission of Ld. Counsel Ms. Apoorva Pandey is that he being the Principal of the school cannot at all be stated to be in any manner involved with the criminal offence, if any, committed by the respondent No. 1 and the argument is also that there is no investigation required by the police against him and that the Ld. MM has rightly observed that it is for the petitioner to prove that any threats had been extended by this respondent to her. She has also pointed out that admittedly a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner seeking damages of about Rs. 20 lacs from the respondents on the basis of the same facts and incident and her contention is that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute and the present criminal complaint has been filed only to pressurize the respondent No. 2 to settle the claim of the petitioner in the civil suit. Ld. Counsel Ms. Pandey has vehemently contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judgments has cautioned the courts against the malicious tendency of the litigants of launching criminal proceedings to settle disputes, which are essentially civil in nature. In particular, she has placed reliance on the judgment of C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 6 of 11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case titled and reported as Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPS India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC
736. She has also pointed out that the conduct of the respondent No. 2 had always been bonafide and that he on the date of the incident itself had immediately rusticated the respondent No. 1 from the school. According to Ld. Counsel it was only on the request of the parents of the petitioner that he facilitated a meeting between them and the parents of respondent No. 1 and that the parents of the petitioner of their own freewill had compromised their disputes with the parents of respondent No. 1 and had accepted a payment of Rs. 15,000/ and there was absolutely no threat or pressure exerted by the respondent No. 2. The contention of the Ld. Counsel Ms. Pandey therefore is that no criminal offence can be stated to have been committed by the respondent No. 2 and therefore the registration of the FIR against him is completely unwarranted.
7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by all the Ld. Counsels. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be readily inferred from the impugned order, as sought to be done by the Ld Counsel for the petitioner, that the Ld. MM was swayed by the fact of a compromise entered into between the parties. However, having said so, this Court does agree with the petitioner that the Ld. MM appears to have C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 7 of 11 incorrectly observed that no investigation is required to be conducted as the entire evidence is in the possession of the complainant. It is apparent from the matrix of facts available on record that the alleged incident happened in the presence of many school children, who cannot at all be stated to be under the control of the petitioner. In such facts, the Ld. MM could not have at all observed that the entire evidence is in possession of the complainant. In the considered opinion of this Court, investigation will be required to be conducted by the police authorities to ascertain the allegations made by the petitioner and the statements of the school children will have to be recorded by the investigating agency itself. It has also been rightly contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the medical opinion with respect to the nature of injury received by the complainant/petitioner will also have to be sought by the investigating agency only and merely because the petitioner has got herself examined herself by a doctor, it is not sufficient to hold that the entire evidence is in her possession. No doubt the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 and 3 with respect to the alleged threats extended by them might be in her possession but the aforementioned medical evidence and the evidence of the school children, discussed herein in above cannot at all be stated to be in the possession of the petitioner/complainant. The reliance of Ms. Pandey on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 8 of 11 contend that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the present criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue is completely misplaced. In the very judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that its dicta would apply to civil disputes which do not involve any criminal offence. In the present case, in view of the fact that the eye of the petitioner has been permanently damaged due to an alleged intentional act of respondent No. 1, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be stated that the dispute between the parties is eventually a civil dispute with no involvement of a criminal offence. I am also unable to agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel Ms. Pandey that as against respondent No. 2, the impugned order should be allowed to stand, for in the considered opinion of this court the genesis of the allegations of criminal intimidation made by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 arise from the same incident namely the alleged intentional hitting of petitioners eye by the respondent No. 1 and the same cannot be dealt with separately and will have to be investigated along with the main incident. It is also not completely unimaginable as sought to be contended by Ld. Counsel Ms. Pandey that the petitioner who is a daughter of a poor labourer and having lost the vision of both her eyes (admittedly the right eye of the petitioner was already permanently damaged), was criminally intimidated by respondent No. 2 C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 9 of 11 along with the father of respondent No. 1, who is a man of means and that these persons pressurized her not to pursue her complaint. Further, it is to be borne in mind that mere direction for registration of FIR does not imply that any court is in any manner giving an opinion about the guilt of this respondent. All that is being considered at this stage is whether in view of the allegations made by the petitioner which primafacie reveal commission of criminal offences, investigation is required or not and in the considered opinion of this Court, as observed hereinabove the main incident of the respondent No. 1 intentionally causing grievous injury to the petitioner needs to be investigated by the police authorities and therefore the ancillary alleged incident namely that of respondent No. 2 criminally intimidating the petitioner and threatening her to withdraw her complaint against respondent No. 1 will have to be investigated along with the main incident.
8. As regards the contention of respondent No. 1 and 3, that the petitioner should not be believed, it is well settled law that the genuineness or credibility of the complaint is not a condition precedent for registration of a case and that can only be considered after investigation. Particular reference in this respect is made to the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled and reported C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 10 of 11 as Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors, (2006) 2 SC Cases 677.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that Ld. MM appears to have erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order passed by the Ld. MM suffers from illegality. As such the same is hereby set aside and the Ld. MM is directed to reconsider the application filed under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C by the petitioner in view of the aforesaid observations made by this Court and pass an order afresh. A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court immediately. The trial court record be also sent back.
Announced in the Open Court on dated 17.11.2015 (ANU GROVER BALIGA) SPECIAL JUDGE : C.B.I. (P.C.ACT) DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.C. No: 18/ 2015 Page No. 11 of 11