Delhi District Court
Tayyab Ali vs . State & Others on 22 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA:
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH - EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR No. 730/2018
TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS
Sh. Tayyab Ali S/o Sh. Rashid Ali
R/o: House No. F-61,
Abul Fazal Enclave-II,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, .......... Revisionist/
New Delhi - 110025 Complainant
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through Public Prosecutor for the State
NCT of Delhi, New Delhi .......... Respondent No. 1
2. Mohd. Kamil S/o Mohd. Munnawar
3. Ms. Shahnaz W/o Mohd. Kamil
Both R/o: Village Raipur Khurd,
Thana - Amroha Dehaat, .......... Respondents No. 2 & 3/
Amroha, Uttar Pradesh Accused Persons
Date of filing : 11.10.2018
Order or order : 22.10.2020
ORDER:
1. The Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the Revisionist/Complainant against the Order dated 27.06.2018 vide which the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the Revisionist/Complainant, has been dismissed.
CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 1 of 72. The facts in brief are that a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed by the Revisionist/ Complainant for registration of the FIR against the Respondents No. 2 & 3/Accused persons Mohd. Kamil and Ms. Shahnaz for committing the offences punishable under Sections 120-B/182/ 192/193/195/499/500/506/34 IPC.
3. The facts as narrated in the complaint are that the native place of Revisionist/Complainant is Amroha, Uttar Pradesh where his father and brother are residing. However, the Revisionist/ Complainant is permanent resident of Delhi and is residing along with his family members since last 11 years. The Revisionist/ Complainant has claimed that a dispute arose between the Respondent No. 2/Mohd. Kamil and his wife Respondent No. 2/ Ms. Shahnaz and Sh. Rashid Ali, father of the Revisionist/ Complainant as respondents sold their main access to the house but wanted to use the personal passage of the father of the Revisionist/ Complainant which was denied. The respondents filed a false and fabricated complaint under Section 376 IPC against the father and brother of the Revisionist/Complainant at PS Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. Since the complaint had no truth, a Closure Report was submitted by the IO before the court.
4. Having failed in their first complaint, Respondents No. 2 & 3/ Accused persons Mohd. Kamil and Ms. Shahnaz again planned and fabricated another false complaint under Sections 376-D/506 IPC against the Revisionist/Complainant and his family members.
CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 2 of 7TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS The FIR was again not registered by the police since it was a false complaint and no action was taken. Respondents No. 2 & 3/ Accused persons Mohd. Kamil and Ms. Shahnaz then filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in Amroha District Court, Uttar Pradesh and the notice was issued by the Court to the IO to investigate the matter and submit the Action Taken Report and in case complaint was found to be false, to register the case against the Respondent No. 1 Mohd. Kamil.
5. Revisionist/Complainant has asserted in his complaint that the false information was furnished by the Respondent No. 1 Mohd. Kamil with the malafide intention to get false case registered against the Revisionist/ Complainant and also cause harm and injury to him. He also gave false statement in the Police Station Amroha, Uttar Pradesh making false allegations of gang rape against the Revisionist/Complainant and his family members. Furthermore, the bogus application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. had been filed to defame the Revisionist/ Complainant. Also, threats were extended by the Respondents No. 2 & 3/Accused persons Mohd. Kamil and Ms. Shahnaz to the Revisionist/ Complainant in regard to which the complaint was given in PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi vide DD No. 45-B dated 26.07.2014 and again on 15.02.2016 vide DD No. 20-B, but no action has been taken by the police. The Revisionist/Complainant gave a complaint in the office of Commissioner of Police, but the same has also not invoked any action from the police. Hence, the present complaint CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 3 of 7 TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS and application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C was moved for registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B/182/192/193/195/499/ 500/506/34 IPC.
6. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had called for the Action Taken Report in response to which SI Nassu Ahmed, I.O. had filed the report stating that Respondents No. 2 & 3/Accused persons Mohd. Kamil and Ms. Shahnaz had made a complaint of rape against the Revisionist/Complainant in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, but the same had been dismissed by the Court. It was submitted that the matter pertained to Village Rampur Khurd, Police Station and District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
7. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide her impugned Order dated 27.06.2018 observed that no part of cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of this Court and also the offences alleged to have been committed were non-cognizable offences and no directions for registration of the FIR could be given and dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
9. The main grounds which are agitated are that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has erroneously come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction is of Amroha, Uttar Pradesh and that no cause of action arose in Delhi. There were specific allegations of the threats having been extended to the Revisionist/ CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 4 of 7 TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS Complainant at his workshop despite which the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly dismissed the complaint. The impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice and good conscience and has been made in a mechanical manner. It is submitted that the impugned order is required to be set-aside and directions be given for registration of the FIR.
10.Written arguments have also been submitted on behalf of the Revisionist/Complainant, wherein it is submitted that in view of the complaint dated 26.07.2014 registered vide DD No. 45-B, PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. This Court has territorial jurisdiction and the complaint could not have been dismissed summarily.
11.I have heard the arguments and perused the record and written arguments filed on behalf of the Revisionist/Complainant. My observations are as under:
12.The averments made by the Revisionist/Complainant in the complaint are that there was some dispute between the Respondents No. 2 & 3/Accused persons Mohd. Kamil and Ms. Shahnaz and his father and brother in regard to the property. It is further his case that the Respondents/Accused No. 2 & 3 had registered two false cases against the Revisionist/Complainant, his father and family members at Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.
13.In one case, application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed for registration of the FIR for gang rape but the police had filed closure report. As per the Revisionist/Complainant himself, the CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 5 of 7 TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS complaint of rape, proceedings in the Court and the consequent closure had taken place in District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. No part of cause of action in regard to false complaint or its trial took place in Delhi. The second complaint was also filed in District Amroha on which no action was taken by the police. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has thus, rightly observed that no part of cause of action arose in Delhi and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
14.The Revisionist/Complainant has made a grievance that threats were extended to him in regard to which he had made two complaints at PS Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and thus, a part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi. A copy of the complaint dated 15.02.2016 registered vide DD No. 20-B, which was resubmitted on 05.09.2017, mentions about the false complaint and alleged attempt by the Respondents/Accused No. 2 & 3 to implicate the Revisionist/ Complainant and his family members in false case but there is no averment whatsoever of any threat having been extended to the Revisionist/Complainant.
15.Revisionist/Complainant has placed on record copy of another complaint vide DD No. 45-B dated 26.07.2014. The said complaint as well refers to the false complaints that were made and that the Revisionist/ Complainant is resident of Delhi despite which his name has been falsely added in the complaint filed in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh and he had apprehension that he may suffer some harm for which responsibility would completely be with the Respondents/Accused No. 2 & 3. Revisionist/Complainant CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 6 of 7 TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS expressed his fear that he may be killed or kidnapped or implicated in some other wrongful act. The complaint merely records the apprehension of the Revisionist/ Complainant in regard to safety of his life and property. There is not an iota of word about any threat having been extended by the Respondents No. 2 & 3, who are residents of Amroha, Uttar Pradesh to the Revisionist/Complainant in Delhi.
16.Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly observed that since no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. is thus, not maintainable.
17.In view of above, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order dated 27.06.2018. The Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.
18.Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
19.Revision Petition be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by NEENA NEENA BANSAL
BANSAL KRISHNA
Date: 2020.10.23
KRISHNA 12:22:44 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Neena Bansal Krishna)
on 22.10.2020 Principal District & Sessions Judge
(KSR) South East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CR No. 730/2018 Page No. 7 of 7
TAYYAB ALI VS. STATE & OTHERS