Delhi District Court
Devender Kumar vs State & Ors. on 24 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN
ACMM (SW) : DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CC No: 41/16
PS Uttam Nagar
Devender Kumar Vs State & Ors.
24.01.2017
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION U/S 156 (3) Cr.PC
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application filed by
complainant u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is the
neighbour of the complainant, and respondent No.4 was earlier living to adjacent house of the complainant and shifted in March 2016, and that complainant used to keep a spare set of key of his house with respondent No.4, and therefore, respondent was well aware of the physical and financial condition of the house of the complainant.
3. It is further alleged that on 30.06.2016, at around 01:30 a.m., the complainant and his wife went terrace to sleep. At around 05:30 a.m., complainant found that door of his house was unlatched and half open. The steel Almirah was also open and the goods were scattered all over in the room and on checking he found that articles (one gold ring; three gold rings; two gold chains, five gold mangalsutras, four pair of silver payal; one silver waistband; three gold nose pins; one mobile make Lava Devender Kumar Vs State & Ors.
..2..
Iris and one mobile make Micromax) missing which were of estimated value of Rs.4,24,800/-.
4. Complainant further stated in his complaint that he informed the police and an FIR u/s 832/2015 dated 30.06.2015 u/s 380/457 IPC PS Uttam Nagar was lodged. He further alleged that police investigated the case in a very shoddy manner and no recovery was made. He further stated that on 30.07.2015 he wrote a complaint to the DCP West but no action was taken by the police. Again, he wrote a complaint to DCP West on 14.09.2015 but no action was taken and copy of said letter was also sent delivered to the Commissioner of Police on 16.09.2015 but complainant found nothing except disappointment. He further alleged that police did not take any action against respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 despite telling the police about grave apprehension of involvement of respondent No.2 & 4 in the theft.
5. Complainant further alleged that after several persuasions for months the police asked him to give a complaint in writing and accordingly on 17.08.2016 he wrote a complaint to the police which was duly received by them but no action was taken by the police, and therefore, this application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC was filed.
6. As per the status report, FIR No. 832/15 was registered Devender Kumar Vs State & Ors.
..3..
and in that one JCL was arrested and appropriate proceedings were initiated against him and charge sheet was filed. It is further alleged that complainant had not shown his suspicion on anybody prior to filing of present complaint.
7. I have heard the complainant and perused the record.
8. First of all, I may mention that when a complaint case is filed before a Magistrate, the Magistrate has two options i.e either to send the matter to the police for investigation U/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to make a preliminary inquiry U/s. 202 Cr.P.C. In this regard, I find support from a decision of a case reported as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd Vs. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi) wherein it was held that :
" It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and intimate investigations but this 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 Devender Kumar Vs State & Ors. ..4..
position to collect and produce evidence before the court and interest of justice demand that the police should step in the help of the complainant." In this regard, help can also be taken from the decision of a case reported as Gulab Chand Upadhayay Vs. State of UP reported as 2002 Crl. Law Journal 2907."
9. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as V.P. Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi) & ors.2009XAD (Delhi) 701, it is interalia held that:
" The insistence to direct the Magistrate to take the other course of exercise of directing registration of FIR by calling for an investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is putting the entire Cr.P.C.
on a different pedestal. It is being raised by people who does not want to lead evidence or who does not have evidence to substantiate the complaint in accordance with law. In the present case also, the petitioner has not chosen to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and he wanted to adopt a shortcut."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Lalita Kumari v/s State of U.P., Crl. M.P. No: 5029 of 14 in W.P.(Crl.) 68/08 decided on 05.03.2014 has held that:
"We modify clause (vii) of paragraph 111 of our judgment dated 12.11.2013 in the Devender Kumar Vs State & Ors. ..5..
following manner:
(vii)while ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 15 days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such detail and case of which should imposed to be reflected in the general diary to this extent clause 7 of the paragraph 111 of the judgment is modified."
11. In the present case, the identity of the accused is established; FIR has already been registered and charge sheet has been filed. In the complaint dated 30.07.2015, 16.09.2015, 17.08.2016, no allegations have been levelled by the complainant against the accused herein. Hence, I do not find any ground to send the case for any further investigation.
12. The application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC is dismissed. The complainant is, at liberty, to file a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC, if so advised.
13. File be consigned to record room. Announced in Open Court on 24th day of January, 2017 (ANKUR JAIN) ACMM (SW) : Dwarka : 24.01.2017