Delhi District Court
Subhash Saluja vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) on 29 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
Cr. REVISION NO. 347/2018
SUBHASH SALUJA
S/O LATE SHRI D.R. SALUJA
R/o F121, LAJPAT NAGARI
NEW DELHI 110024
... REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
2. CHANDER SHEKHAR, S/o SHRI R.J. LAL
3. RAJ BALA, W/o SHRI CHANDER SHEKHAR
BOTH R/o A16, LAJPAT NAGARII,
NEW DLEHI 110024
ALSO AT H.NO. 100, SECOND FLOOR
GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI 110049
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 14.05.2018 First date before this court : 15.05.2018 Arguments concluded on : 29.11.2018 Date of Decision : 29.11.2018 Appearance : Shri Karamveer Singh, counsel for revisionist Shri S.K. Dash, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State.
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
1. Revisionist, being the complainant defacto of case FIR No. 555/15 registered by PS Economic Offences Wing for offence under Cr. Revision No. 347/2018 Subhash Saluja vs State & Ors. Page 1 of 5 Pages Section 420 IPC has challenged order dated 22.03.2018 of the learned Magistrate, whereby at the stage of investigation, application of the investigating officer for one day police remand was dismissed on the ground of violations of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
2. On the very first date, a query was put to learned counsel for revisionist as regards his locus standi, it being the State case. After taking few adjournments to examine the legal position, on last date, learned counsel for revisionist submitted that revisionist is the ultimate sufferer and the State might support this revision and going by this submission, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. Notice sent to the private respondents, who are accused persons returned unserved. But learned Chief Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State today submitted that State has opted not to support this revision petition. Issuing fresh notice to the private respondents in the light of stand taken by State would be placing unnecessary litigation expense on the private respondents. Under these circumstances, I have heard learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Chief Public Prosecutor.
3. On behalf of revisionist, it is contended that revisionist is the ultimate sufferer of faulty investigation, therefore, revisionist has locus standi to file this revision petition. It is argued on behalf of Cr. Revision No. 347/2018 Subhash Saluja vs State & Ors. Page 2 of 5 Pages revisionist that in para 7.1 of the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clearly held that those directions do not apply where the accused is involved in multiple cases. It is also argued that since the present private respondents are involved in multiple cases of cheating, they cannot be given benefit of the directions laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). Learned counsel for revisionist took me through order dated 16.03.2018 of the learned CMM, SouthEast and contended that even CMM held that the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) are not applicable to the present case.
4. On behalf of State, it is submitted by learned prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, so State does not support this revision petition.
5. So far as the locus standi is concerned, the fact remains that it is a State case in which status of the present revisionist is only of a complainant defacto/witness. Merely because according to the revisionist the investigation is faulty, locus standi in State case cannot be usurped by him. In my view, the revisionist does not have locus standi to challenge the impugned order in revision.
6. At the same time, the revisional jurisdiction being also a suo motu power vested in the Court of Sessions, like any other suo motu power, revisional power also is attendant with implicit duty to invoke the Cr. Revision No. 347/2018 Subhash Saluja vs State & Ors. Page 3 of 5 Pages same in the interest of justice. Merely because the revisionist does not have locus standi, this court cannot refuse to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order. Keeping this in mind, I have examined the record.
7. At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that in CMM order dated 16.03.2018, the reference regarding nonapplicability of the Arnesh Kumar (supra) is not the view of the learned CMM but only a contention raised before the learned CMM on behalf of complainant defacto. Even in paragraph 7.1 of the said judgment, there is no such observation that where the accused is involved in multiple cases, the arrest guidelines would not apply.
8. As regards the other cheating cases, as reflected from the impugned order itself, one case of cheating already stands compounded with the private respondents while FIR of the other cheating case stands quashed. Since admittedly the private respondents have been joining investigation even according to the investigating officer without issuance of any notice under Section 160 CrPC and also since no notice of Section 41A CrPC was issued to the private respondents prior to arresting them, in my view, the learned Magistrate correctly observed that there are violations of guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
Cr. Revision No. 347/2018Subhash Saluja vs State & Ors. Page 4 of 5 Pages
9. In view of above discussion, I am unable to find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order dated 22.03.2018, so the same is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.
10. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court and revision file be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court on
this 29th day of November, 2018 (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
District & Sessions Judge
Digitally signed South East, Saket Courts
by GIRISH
GIRISH New Delhi 29.11.2018 (a)
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date:
2018.11.29
17:21:46 +0530
Cr. Revision No. 347/2018
Subhash Saluja vs State & Ors. Page 5 of 5 Pages