Delhi District Court
High Court In M/S. Skipper Beverages ... vs . State, Cited As 2001 on 4 February, 2016
Krishan Lal v. Dal Chand and Another CC No. 3/01/15 PS Moti Nagar 04.02.2016 Present : Complainant with Ld. LAC Sh. Ravinder Singh. 1.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant used to reside at Jhuggi No. 248, Camp No. 3, Bhim Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, till 20.01.2015. That initially complainant had cordial relation with the accused Dal Chand. Later on he came to know that accused is having a criminal background and do the work of making fake voter ID Card and Caste Certificate. That coming to know this, complainant severed all his relations with the accused. It is alleged that the accused made false voter ID Cards of Dalip Kanojia, Bal Kishan and Geeta on the address of the complainant. On coming to know this complainant submitted form no. 7 on 23.01.2009 in the Office of Election Office for Deletion of the names. It is stated that on 05.10.2014 accused came to the house of the complainant and started quarreling with him and also threatened him to kill him if complainant would not vacate the jhuggi. Thereafter, on 05.10.2014 accused no. 1 made a complaint to SHO PS Mianwali Nagar. It is stated that on 29.12.2014 complainant had gone to the house of her wife. Accused no. 1 reached there and again threatened to kill the complainant. It is further stated that on 20.01.2015 accused no. 1 along with 4-5 persons came at the jhuggi of the complainant and forcibly dispossessed him. He also broken the lock of the complainant and replaced the same with another one. Thereafter, he again threatened the complainant. It is alleged that accused handed over the jhuggi of the complainant to Dalip Kanojia, Geeta and Bal Kishan. It is stated that accused no. 1 apprised them that this is his jhuggi and they will live there as tenants. Thereafter, on 13.02.2015 complainant again approached the local police however, no action has been taken by the police so far. It is further stated that only a kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the police against the complainant only. On the basis of these facts it is argued that accused no. 1 committed the offence punishable u/s 415/419/454/465/506 IPC and against accused no. 2 i.e. SHO PS Mianwali Nagar has committed offence punishable u/s CC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 1 of 4 166 IPC.
2. Reply was sought from the SHO concerned wherein it is reported that the alleged jhuggi is on Government Land and no one is having any registry or power of attorney in respect of the same. It is further reported that jhuggi belongs to the accused Dal Chand who was having ration card on that address with him prior to the ration card of the complainant. It is stated that the matter is of civil nature. Further regarding quarrel Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. was made.
4. It is settled law that U/s 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate has power to direct the police to register a case and investigate the matter, but this power is to be exercised judiciously and not in a technical manner. In the matters where the complainant has in his possession all the evidence required to prove his allegations, there should be no need to pass an order U/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court in M/s. SKIPPER BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE, Cited as 2001 IV AD (Delhi), wherein it has been held as under:
"It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers the Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigation but his 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. This discretion ought to be exercised after proper 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 in the help the complainant".
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines to decide applications u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a case titled as Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012 ) DOD. 19.03.15, wherein it was held "26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section CC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 2 of 4 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. a court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the CC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 3 of 4 person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR".
7. All the evidences in the present case are in the reach of complainant. Furthermore, from the facts of the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the assistance of investigating agency is not required in the present case for the collection of evidence. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that the complainant is in possession of entire evidence. Thus it does not appear to be a case where the police assistance is required for the purpose of collection of evidence. None of the evidence in the present case is beyond the reach of the complainant. Accordingly, the present application u/s 156 (3) of Code of Criminal is dismissed. In the facts of the present case, the undersigned deem it appropriate that the complainant be directed to prove the allegations made by him on the oath.
9. Therefore, the undersigned takes cognizance of the complaint and complainant is called upon to bring pre-summoning evidence on 22.04.2016.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04:West:THC:Delhi:04.02.2016.
CC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar Page 4 of 4