Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar Prasad vs (1)The State on 23 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.R. No.02/2014
Unique Case ID No.02402R0017562014
Raj Kumar Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Gangu Prasad
R/o S608, Nehru Enclave,
School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi92.
At also Bar Library No.1,
Supreme Court of India. ... Petitioner
Versus
(1)The State
Through SHO, PS Shakarpur.
(2)Director, Som Dutt Medical Centre
S524, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi92.
(3)Dr. Vardhman Jain
Ortho Redician
Som Dutt Medical Centre,
S524, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi92.
(4)Dr. Y.K. Kaushik
Radio Diagnosis
Som Dutt Medical Centre,
S524, School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi92. ... Respondents
CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 1 of 8
Date of Institution : 18.01.2014
Date of order reserved : 11.09.2014
Date of order : 23.09.2014
O R D E R
Vide this order, I shall dispose of a revision petition under section 397/399 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/ petitioner against order dated 24.10.2013 passed by Ld. MM (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the application of the revisionist /petitioner filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. However, the Ld. MM treat the application as complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence.
2 Trial Court record has been called. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have gone through the material available on the record. 3 The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that petitioner/complainant had filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to SHO, PS Shakarpur to register FIR against respondent Nos.2 to 4herein/ accused persons for offence u/s 420 IPC and under other sections. Ld. MM called the status report from the concerned Police Station. CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 2 of 8 Ld. MM on appreciation of the material placed before him, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and treated the application as complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. Ld. MM called the petitioner to adduce presummoning evidence. It is against that order, the present revision petition has been filed. 4 Grounds challenging the impugned order dated 24.10.2013 are that the doctor at Som Dutt Medical Centre prepared false xray report and stated that left leg bone was broken and advised operation, whereas the doctor of Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre (AIIMS) found no fracture on the left leg of the petitioner. The IO has not investigated the case properly and gave a false report. Doctor of Som Dutt Medical Centre are greedy persons and looting innocent persons and legal action should be initiated against them. 5 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that when allegations made by the petitioner disclosed commission of cognizable offences, police was duty bound to register FIR. He has further argued that the application also disclosed commission of cognizable offences of preparation of false xray report and cheating by the accused persons, therefore, Ld. MM was having no option other than directing the police to register FIR.
CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 3 of 8 6 In the present case, the fact remains that it is not necessary that in every case where an application has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime, even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses.
7 The question involved in the present case is with regard to issuance of directions by the Court to the police or taking of cognizance by the Court itself on the application of the petitioners. As per Section 190 of Cr.PC, when a complaint is received, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate can adopt two methods. Firstly, the Magistrate may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, without taking cognizance, to investigate and file a report. Secondly, the Magistrate may take the cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint and conduct proceedings under Section 202 of Cr.PC. In this case, Ld. MM exercised his discretion and instead of adopting former procedure, preferred to take cognizance on the application of the petitioner by treating it complaint case and called upon the petitioner to adduce CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 4 of 8 evidence.
8 I have gone through the ratio of judgment in case titled P. Kannappan versus State of Kerala (Reported in 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 165), in which the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed that the Magistrate can adopt two options when a complaint is filed before him. He may direct the police to investigate and file the report. He may take cognizance and proceed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It is further observed that the complainant has no right to make a demand to refer the case to the police.
9 Similar views have been expressed by their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 1877 in which it was held that the power to direct an investigation to the police is available to the Magistrate both under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and under section 202 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct an investigation by the police is at the precognizance stage while the power to direct similar investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. is at the postcognizance stage. The Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and proceeded with the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 5 of 8 Apex Court held that there is nothing irregular in the manner in which the Ld. Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of 202(2) Cr.P.C., if deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. or proceed in terms of Section 193 Cr.P.C. The said law has been consistently followed in :
(1)Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2001 ( 92) DLT 217. (2)Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. 2001 (I)AD (Crl.) SC 34.
10 Our own Hon'ble High Court has also observed as such in a recent case titled Ravindra Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 403. It was held that remedy under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the words 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offence/offences and also about necessity of Police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of police. The complainant, as a matter of right, can not insist that the complaint case filed by him/her should be directed in every eventuality to the Police for investigation. 11 In a recent judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 6 of 8 in case of Subhash Manchanda Vs. State & Anr. 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 495, it has been observed that 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. 12 In the present case also, the Ld. MM rejected the prayer made in the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. In the said application, the petitioner made prayer for issuance of direction to the police to investigate the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In my view, a complainant has no right or privilege to ask the Magistrate to refer the case to the police. It is the discretion of the Magistrate, either he can forward the complaint to the police for investigation or he himself can take cognizance and proceed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
13 In the present case, status report filed by the police shows that no cognizable offence was made out as per the allegations of the petitioner. It is apparent that the accused persons as mentioned in the complaint are well known to the petitioner. Petitioner is also having the knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the alleged offences and the evidence is in his possession. The evidence can CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 7 of 8 easily be adduced by the petitioner in support of allegations contained in the complaint, so there was no necessity to direct the police to inquire into the allegations. As per the law laid down in the above judgments, the Magistrate is of the discretion either to direct the police to investigate or to himself investigate the allegations by calling the complainant to adduce presummoning evidence. 14 In view of laid down by Superior Courts, impugned order can not be said to be inconsistent with the law. Ld. MM can not be said to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him or exceeded the jurisdiction. Impugned order passed by Ld. MM does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Consequently, impugned order is hereby upheld. As a result, present revision petition is dismissed.
15 A copy of the order along with Trial Court Record be sent to Trial Court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 23.09.2014 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
CR No.02/2014 Raj Kr. Prasad Vs. The State etc. Page 8 of 8