Delhi District Court
Abhinav Gulati vs The State on 29 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, NORTH EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Revision no. 15/11
Abhinav Gulati
s/o Shri Ashok Gulati
Both R/o H41, Mansarover Park,
Shahdara, Delhi.
..................Petitioner
Versus
The State
.................Respondents
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the criminal revision petition filed u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 3.8.2011 passed by Shri Ankur Jain, Ld. M.M., KKD Court, Delhi, in criminal complaint No.1947/2008 titled as Abhinav Gulati vs Suresh Chand Sharma & Ors. wherein the Ld. M.M. was pleased to dismiss the application of the petitioner u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Criminal Revision no. 15/11 1/5
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel Mr. Devender Verma on behalf of the revisionist and Addl. PP for the State / respondent and gone through the entire record including the TCR.
3. For the sake of brevity the facts of the case are not being repeated.
4. The grounds on which the order dated 3.8.2011 has been challenged are: (1) That the order is passed on conjectures and surmises (2) That the complaint filed by the accused No.1 is a counter blast to the complaint filed by the complainant and in that complaint Ld. M.M. gave directions for registration of the case against the complainant and his father Shri Ashok Kumar Gulati whereas the complaint of the complainant (revisionist) was filed much prior to the complaint made by the respondent and the same was not even considered judiciously and the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
It is further contended that the trial court ignored the basic law as laid down in a recent judgment Radha Vs State, Criminal Revision no. 15/11 2/5 reported in DLT 2011 Vol. No.179 Page 810 which clearly states that from the bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, the police has to register the case and then investigate the case.
5. I have perused the order passed by Ld. M.M. dated 3.8.2011. The relevant para of the order is as under: "In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Subhakaran Luharuka Vs State 2010(3) JCC 1972. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has laid down the procedure to be followed by the Subordinate Court while dealing with the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. As per the same, an action taken report is to be called and thereafter, the Court should be satisfied the necessity to direct police investigation in the matter of collection of evidence. Perusal of the action taken report filed shows that compromise has taken place between the complainant and accused and a letter was addressed to SHO, PS M.S. Park regarding the same which was signed by the complainant.
I have perused the complaint, application and also heard ld.counsel for the parties. I am of the view that allegations as set out in the Criminal Revision no. 15/11 3/5 complaint do not require any investigation from the police and complainant can very well adduce the evidence in support of her allegations. I do not see any ground to send the complaint to the police for investigation. Hence, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. stands dismissed".
6. The order passed by Ld. M.M. is in consonance with the facts and law on the point. As regards the ruling DLT 2011 Vol. 179 P 810 that is a mandate for the police. While we are concerned herewith Section 156 Cr.P.C. Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power has to be exercised judiciously not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations there should be no need to pass order u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The case in hand falls in same category and the fact that on the basis of complaint of the respondents an FIR was ordered to be registered is no ground for registration of an FIR on the Criminal Revision no. 15/11 4/5 complaint of the revisionist herein. In the case in hand nature of allegations are such that the complainant himself is in position to collect and produce evidence before the court and as such declining request to issue directions to police u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was justified. There is no ground for this court to justify any interference in the order passed by the trial court. There has been no miscarriage of justice. There is no error in the order and the order is legally sustainable. I, accordingly, dismiss the revision petition. The copy of the order be sent to trial court along with TCR. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Nisha Saxena) today on 29.2.12. Additional Sessions Judge03, North East District, KKD, Delhi Criminal Revision no. 15/11 5/5