Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Kamal Singh vs Mrs Anjali Etc on 3 April, 2024

     IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA,
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03: WEST
      DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

                                       CNR No. DLWT01- 002070-2022
                                            Crl. Revision No. 54-2022
                                                   PS- Anand Parbat
                                                    U/s. 397 Cr. P. C.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Kamal Singh
                                            .............Revisionist/Petitioner

                                      VERSUS
1. Anjali
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.

2. JagmohanAnjali
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.

3. Asha
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.

4. Mohit
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.

5. Kishore Kumar
R/o 271/17, Gali no. 2 Than Singh
Nagar, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.

6. Vicky N
R/o 271/17, Gali no. 2 Than Singh
Nagar, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.

7. Sunita
R/o 61N, Block-61, Central Government

CR No. 54­2022   Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors.     PS­ Anand Parbat   Page No.1/8
 Residential Complex Raja Bazar,
Sector-4, Gol Market, GPO Complex,
New Delhi-110023.

8. State of NCT of Delhi
Through DCP Central District Delhi.

                                                     ............Respondents

         Date of Institution                            : 08.03.2022
         Date of Reserving Order                        : 18.03.2024
         Date of Order                                  : 03.04.2024

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION U/s. 397 Cr. P.C.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2022 PASSED BY
LD. ACMM, WEST, IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 482//2021,
PS- ANAND PARBAT, TITLED AS KAMAL SINGH VS.
ANJALI & ORS.

ORDER:

1. Revisionist Kamal Singh is aggrieved by impugned order dated 04.02.2022 passed by Ld. ACMM, West, THC, Delhi whereby in complaint case bearing no. CC No. 482/2021 PS- Anand Parbat titled as Kamal Singh Vs. Anjali & Ors., his application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was dismissed and matter was listed for pre-summoning evidence.

2. The revisionist herein is the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court while the respondents are the alleged accused persons before Ld. Trial Court. State has been impleaded as respondent no.8 in the present revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred by their nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the complainant had filed a complaint CR No. 54­2022 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS­ Anand Parbat Page No.2/8 case bearing CC No. 482/2021 under section 200 Cr. P. C. against the alleged accused persons alleging commission of cognizable offences. The complaint case was accompanied with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C.

4. The allegations in the complaint are that the alleged accused persons had played a big matrimonial fraud and duped the complainant and cheated him of his jewelery worth Rs.4.5 Lakhs and cash of Rs.50000/- and several other gift items. The alleged accused persons targetted the complainant in the month of January, 2020 and by inducement made the complainant to enter into a matrimonial alliance with alleged accused no.1 on 16.06.2020 during lockdown. After marriage, alleged accused no.1 stayed with the complainant only for two months and did not let the marriage to be consummated and thereafter fled away on 15.08.2020 leaving the matrimonial house alongwith jewelery worth Rs.4.5 Lakhs and cash of Rs.50000/-. Thereafter she started blackmailing the complainant and demanding Rs.7 Lakhs in the garb of settlement for mutual divorce and also refused to accept that she was in possession of the jewelery given to her by the complainant and his family members in marriage. Alleged accused no.1 also threatened to falsely implicate the complainant in false criminal cases in case her demand of Rs.7 Lakhs was not fulfilled. The matter was duly reported to the police but no action was taken. The alleged accused no.1 had left her matrimonial home on 15.08.2020 deliberately deserting the complainant without any reason and without informing the complainant. While leaving she took, alongwith her, four gold bangles worth Rs.2.5 Lakhs, one earring set, one diamond ring with gold, one gold ring with American diamond, gold pendate (mangalsutra) all collectively worth Rs.1.5 Lakhs and cash of Rs.50000/-. Despite CR No. 54­2022 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS­ Anand Parbat Page No.3/8 repeated efforts the alleged accused no.1 refused to join the company of the complainant. Complainant filed a petition under Section 9 HMA but despite service alleged accused no.1 did not appear before the said court. The complainant demanded Rs.7 Lakhs in the garb of settlement for mutual divorce. Since no action was taken on the complaint dated 20.02.2020 made by the complainant with the police authorities, the present application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was filed seeking directions for registration of FIR.

5. After receiving the complaint, vide order dated 04.03.2021, Ld. Trial Court summoned an action taken report from SHO PS- Anand Parbat. ATR dated 08.07.2021 was filed by IO ASI Suresh Kumar, PS Anand Parbat.

6. As per the ATR, the allegations in the complaint were in resepct of a matrimonial dispute between the parties. There were no allegation of any physical violence. Already matrimonial cases including section 9 HMA petition and DV Act petition were pending in respective courts. Accordingly, no FIR was registered. IMPUGNED ORDER:

7. After hearing the arguments on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C., the application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.02.2022. Ld. Trial Court observed in the impugned order that assistance of Investigating Agency was not required in the present case for collection of evidence and the entire evidence was within the control and possession of the complainant. The identity of the accused persons was known to the complainant. The allegations bear semblance of matrimonial dispute which is civil in nature. Criminal procedure cannot be used for settlement of disputes which are essentially civil in nature and any attempt to abuse the criminal procedure to settle CR No. 54­2022 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS­ Anand Parbat Page No.4/8 civil dispute must be discouraged. In these facts and circumstances, Ld. Trial Court deemed it appropriate to direct the complainant to prove the allegations made by him on oath before proceeding further.

8. With these observations, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.02.2022 and the matter was proceeded further for recording of pre-summoning evidence.

SUBMISSIONS    ON     BEHALF    OF                                        THE
REVISIONIST/COMPLAINANT/GROUNDS                                            OF
REVISION:

9. In the present revision petition, the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 is challenged on the ground that the same has been passed by Ld. Trial Court on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and without appreciating the material facts and circumstances of the case and genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are clear allegations of commission of cognizable offences of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust made in the complaint and accordingly, it was the responsibility of the investigating authority to register the FIR and investigate the allegations. Merely because the parties are releated by marriage, it cannot be a ground for dismissing the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 be set aside and directions be issued for registration of FIR and investigation in the matter.

10. The complainant/revisionist who is a practising advocate has argued in line with the grounds of revision and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It is submitted that assistance of investigating agency is required for recovering the cash and CR No. 54­2022 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS­ Anand Parbat Page No.5/8 articles taken from the house of the complainant. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ALLEGED ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS:

11. On behalf of the alleged accused persons/respondents herein, written reply to the revision petition has been filed and the same has been vehementally argued. It is submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, there is no ground for recalling the said order. The impugned order is a reasonable, speaking and justified order and has been passed in right perspective manner. The entire complaint filed by the complainant is based on false and frivolous facts and is an attempt to save himself from the consequences his own conduct involving domestic violence practised by him upon alleged accused no.1. The only motive of complainant is to harass alleged respondent no.1 because the marriage between the parties did not work out on account of the conduct and behaviour of the complainat himself. Even otherwise, the present revision petition has already become infructuous as after passing of impugned order, the complainant has already led pre summoning evidence which has been appreciated by Ld. Trial Court and vide order dated 22.06.2023, the complaint case of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed declining the summoning of the alleged accused persons.

12. Since the entire alleged incidents had taken place in the presence of complainant, the entire evidence is within his control and thus, Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed his application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 04.02.2022. Hence, it is submitted that there is no reason for interfering with the impugned order CR No. 54­2022 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS­ Anand Parbat Page No.6/8 and dismissal of the revision petition is sought. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:

13. Ld. Additional PP for the State has also supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the present revision petition.

FINDINGS:

14. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the Trial Court record.

15. It is held by the Apex Court in Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmender Bafna & Anr. Crl. No. 1283/2009 that a revisional court should not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by Ld. Magistrate unless a jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed.

16. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it is a detailed and reasoned order passed after considering the overall facts of the case, submissions made by the complainant as well as the ATR filed by the IO.

17. Considering the overall facts of the case and the impugned order, I am of the opinion that Ld. MM had passed a legal and reasonable order observing that the complainant was in know of the accused persons and the entire evidence was within his control. Accordingly, assistance of investigating agency was not required at this stage. As regards the concern of the complainant regarding the recovery of the alleged robbed articles, the same can be addressed at a later stage, in case required, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. No jurisdictional error or error of law is noticed in the impugned order dated 04.02.2022.

18. In view of the reason given above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.02.2022. Accordingly, the same is upheld and present revision petition stands dismissed.

19. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to an expression of an opinion on the merits of the case.

20. No orders as to cost.

21. TCR be sent back with a copy of the order.

22. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of all legal formalities. Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA Announced in open Court SHARMA Date:

2024.04.03 16:02:35 +0530 Dated: 03.04.2024.

(Shivali Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 03.04.2024.