Delhi District Court
Narender Chadha vs Smt. Simmi Chadha on 9 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No:56062/2016
Narender Chadha,
S/o Late Sudarshan Lal Chadha,
R/o 8/35, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110005. ...... Petitioner.
Versus
Smt. Simmi Chadha,
W/o Sh. Dinesh Chadha,
R/o 3013/4B, Gali No.17,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. ......Respondent.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner Narender Chadha challenging the order dated 07.05.2016 passed by Ld. ACMM (West) dismissing the application of petitioner filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the accused (respondent herein)and asked the complainant to lead his evidence U/s 200 Cr.P.C.
2. The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who put her appearance in the Court through her counsel.
3. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of present petition (as per complainant filed before Ld. Trial Court) are that accused/respondent is the sisterinlaw of complainant/ petitioner. The marriage of accused was solemnized with the brother of complainant namely Sh. Dinesh Chadha, however, after some time of marriage, accused started harassing, torturing and pressurizing her husband and his family members including the complainant on one pretext or other. They all were residing in property no.3013/4B, Gali No.17, Ranjit Nagar, New (CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.1 of pages 8 Delhi admeasuring 100 sq. yards. Due to daily quarrel of accused, complainant and his brother Surender Chadha, their respective family and their mother shifted to property no.8/35, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi, however, they were in physical possession of their respective portions in property no.3013/4B, Gali No.17, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi, which were under their lock and key and some of the articles belonging to the complainant and his above named brother are also lying there. Despite their shift from the said property, behaviour of accused/respondent did not change towards her husband and after some time, husband of accused namley Sh. Dinesh Chadha, also left the said house and started residing with the complainant. Further originally, Sh. Sudarshan Lal Chadha, father of the complainant and fatherinlaw of respondent was the owner of property bearing no.3013/4B, Gali No.17, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. Unfortunately, he expired and after his death, his legal heirs including the complainant became coowners of the said property. However, the other legal heirs including the husband of accused, have released/ relinquished their respective share in the said property, in favour of complainant herein, by virtue of registered Relinquishment Deed dated 25.01.2016. Thus, now the petitioner became the sole/exclusive owner of the said property. Further the petitioner was is in physical possession of one room set alongwith toilet at the first floor forming part of property no.3013/4B, Gali No.17, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi, Sh. Surender Chadha, the brother of petitioner, was in physical possession of one room set, kitchen along with toilet and open space at the second floor of said property and respondent was/is in possession of two rooms at first floor of the said property. The mother of petitioner and motherinlaw of respondent was in possession of entire ground floor forming part of property bearing no.3013/4B, Gali No.17, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi, however, after shifting of mother of petitioner to property no.8/35, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi, she granted permission (CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.2 of pages 8 to the respondent to use the ground floor portion. Almirah and other articles of the mother are still lying there. It is also added that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent instead of using the ground floor portion for herself, started using the same for paying guest purposes and earning Rs.25,000/ per month. On 11.11.2012, when the petitioner visited the said property for inspection purpose, respondent picked up quarrel and threatened to broke open the locks of the portions under possession of petitioner and his brother and to take forcible possession of the same. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 11.11.2012 with PS Ranjit Nagar. On 12.11.2012, police visited the said property and respondent informed that in the portions of the petitioner and his brother, water accumulated and the same needs to be repaired. The petitioner and his brother in the presence of police officials opened their respective portions and after doing the needful, locked their portions. On 19.03.2013, petitioner and his brother also came to know that the respondent was trying to broke open the locks of the petitioner and his brother with an intention to take possession of the same illegally and forcibly. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 19.03.2013 with PS Ranjit Nagar vide DD No.21B on 20.03.2013. The respondent was called in the Police Station and the respondent assured not to broke open the locks of the petitioner and his brother. On 19.04.2013 when the petitioner and his brother visited the said property, the respondent again extended threats to take forcible possession of the portions under the possession of the petitioner and his brother. Therefore, finding no option, the petitioner and his brother had filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the respondent, being Suit No.386/2014, and in the said suit respondent filed her Written Statement. The said suit was decreed by Ld. Civil Judge (West) vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015. On 15.12.2015 when the petitioner visited the said property, respondent did not allow the petitioner to enter in the said property and created ugly scene and (CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.3 of pages 8 threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 16.12.2015 with PS Ranjeet Nagar in this regard. Further on 08.02.2016, when the petitioner again visited the said property, he was shocked and surprised to see that the respondent was in possession of the portion of the petitioner as well as in the portion of his brother namely Surender Chadha. Taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner and his brother were residing in a separate property and in order to fulfill her illegal aim, as threatened by the respondent on earlier occasions, respondent in the absence of petitioner, broken the locks of the petitioner and his brother and trespassed in the said portions. Now the respondent is in possession of entire said property. The petitioner apprised the respondent abut his exclusive ownership in the said property, orally revoked the license of the respondent, which was granted by the mother of petitioner to the respondent, and further requested the respondent to vacate and hand over the peaceful vacant possession of entire said property, but respondent threatened to create third party interest in the said property to some goonda elements. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 08.02.2016 with PS Ranjeet Nagar in this regard. The petitioner repeatedly requested the police officials of PS Ranjeet Nagar for registration of FIR against the respondent but all in vain. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of local police, the revisionist herein filed a complaint case before the concerned Ld. MM alongwith an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C interalia seeking directions to the Police Officials concerned to register FIR against the respondent herein under Section 447/448/453/ 454/506 IPC. Status report was called in the matter by Ld. Trial Court and then after hearing the arguments in the matter, vide the impugned order dated 07.05.2016, application of complainant/ revisionist herein filed U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, which is being assailed by the complainant on various grounds as mentioned in the petition itself.
(CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.4 of pages 8
4. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist and Ld. Counsel fore respondent. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly the contents of petition, specially the grounds taken therein and also the record summoned from Ld. Trial Court including the Status Report of Investigating Officer.
5. According to Ld. Counsel for appellant, the impugned order as passed by Ld. Trial Court is liable to be set aside as it suffers from material irregularity and illegality. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent trespassed in the portion of petitioner and his brother Surender Chadha, for which the respondent was restrained vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015. The appellant was in the possession of property in question which was endorsed by the accused before the police authorities on various occasions. The accused/respondent willfully and deliberately break open the lock of the property of appellant and trespassed therein after knowing that the decree was passed against her by Ld. Civil Judge. The custodial interrogation of accused/respondent is required on the aspect of theft articles and conspiracy and reason for trespassing.
Per contra, according to Ld. Counsel for respondent as filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits as it has been failed to point out any illegality or patent error in the impugned order dated 07.05.2016 and as such the instant revision petition is liable for dismissal.
6. A perusal of the order dated 07.05.2016 passed by Ld. ACMM (West) would reveal that the order regarding dismissal of application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C was passed by Ld. Trial Court on the presumption that complainant is well aware of all the facts and circumstances and he is in possession of all the material/evidence required by him to prove his case; custodial interrogation of accused or other scientific investigation is not required in this case and if investigation is required at later stage on some aspect, then the same can be ordered U/s 202 Cr.P.C.
(CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.5 of pages 8 Perusal of the contents of application filed U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C reveals that the complainant/revisionist herein has categorically stated therein that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent instead of using the ground floor portion for herself, started using the same for paying guest purposes and earning Rs.25,000/ per month. On 11.11.2012, when the petitioner visited the said property for inspection purpose, respondent picked up quarrel and threatened to broke open the locks of the portions under possession of petitioner and his brother and to take forcible possession of the same. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 11.11.2012 with PS Ranjit Nagar. On 12.11.2012, police visited the said property and respondent informed that in the portions of the petitioner and his brother, water accumulated and the same needs to be repaired. The petitioner and his brother in the presence of police officials opened their respective portions and after doing the needful, locked their portions. On 19.03.2013, petitioner and his brother also came to know that the respondent was trying to broke open the locks of the petitioner and his brother with an intention to take possession of the same illegally and forcibly. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 19.03.2013 with PS Ranjit Nagar vide DD No.21B on 20.03.2013. The respondent was called in the Police Station and the respondent assured not to broke open the locks of the petitioner and his brother. On 19.04.2013 when the petitioner and his brother visited the said property, the respondent again extended threats to take forcible possession of the portions under the possession of the petitioner and his brother. Therefore, finding no option, the petitioner and his brother had filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the respondent, being Suit No.386/2014, and in the said suit respondent filed her Written Statement. The said suit was decreed by Ld. Civil Judge (West) vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015. On 15.12.2015 when the petitioner visited the said property, respondent did not allow the petitioner to enter in the said (CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.6 of pages 8 property and created ugly scene and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 16.12.2015 with PS Ranjeet Nagar in this regard. Further on 08.02.2016, when the petitioner again visited the said property, he was shocked and surprized to see that the respondent was in possession of the portion of the petitioner as well as in the portion of his brother namely Surender Chadha. Taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner and his brother were residing in a separate property and in order to fulfill her illegal aim, as threatened by the respondent on earlier occasions, respondent in the absence of petitioner, broken the locks of the petitioner and his brother and trespassed in the said portions. Now the respondent is in possession of entire said property. The petitioner apprised the respondent about his exclusive ownership in the said property, orally revoked the license of the respondent, which was granted by the mother of petitioner to the respondent, and further requested the respondent to vacate and hand over the peaceful vacant possession of entire said property, but respondent threatened to create third party interest in the said property to some goonda elements. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 08.02.2016 with PS Ranjeet Nagar in this regard.
7. The above allegations, as mentioned in the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, which are of very serious nature, clearly prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence, which require proper and thorough investigation for which registration of FIR is necessary. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that for getting the recovery of stolen articles, which were alleged to have been removed by the respondent, the assistance of police is required. In view of the facts and circumstances of present case, it is also apparent that the petitioner is not in a position to collect the evidence and assistance of police is required for proper investigation of the matter. Genuineness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case and that can be (CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.7 of pages 8 considered only after case has been registered.
8. In view of aforesaid, I am of the view that assistance of police is essentially required as the petitioner of his own might not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of accusation. Only the police can conduct proper investigation and discover the evidence which otherwise cannot be collected by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly order dated 07.05.2016 passed by Ld. M.M. is hereby set aside. SHO PS Ranjit Nagar is directed to register an FIR under sections 506/380/451 IPC in the matter and thereafter investigate the matter in accordance with law. If after registration of FIR and investigation of the matter, no case is made out against the respondent, the police/ investigating agency will be at liberty to file a cancellation report but if the allegations made in the FIR are prima facie found correct, then a final report shall be filed as per provision of section 173 Cr.P.C. The revision petition stands disposed of in these terms.
10. Copy of this order alongwith the copy of complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, filed by the complainant (revisionist herein) before Ld. Trial Court, be sent to SHO PS Ranjit Nagar for information and necessary compliance.
11. TCR alongwith the copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
12. Revision file be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in open Court (RAKESH KUMAR1)
th
on 09 August, 2016) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (NDPS) (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
(CR No.56062/2016) (Narender Chadha Vs. Smt. Simmi Chadha) Page No.8 of pages 8