Delhi District Court
Aish Mohd Dost vs State on 4 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 02 of 2022
CNR No. DLSE01-011910-2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Aish Mohd Dost,
S/o Late Sh Abdul Rashid,
R/o 268D, Hauz Rani,
New Delhi-110017
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. State,
2. Nasiruddin,
S/o late Abdul Rashid,
R/o H. No. H1/39, Zakir Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi
........Respondents
Instituted on : 03.01.2022
Reserved on : 03.01.2022
Pronounced on : 04.01.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant revision, revisionists take exception to the order dated 26.11.2021, whereby his application moved u/s 156(3) Crl Rev. No. 02 of 2022 Aish Mohd Dost Vs State & Anr Page No. 1 of 6 ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.01.04 12:21:19 +0530 Cr.P.C as well as complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC in case bearing Ct No. 1256/2021 titled as Aish Mohd Dost Vs Nasiruddin, stood dismissed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-08, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts as noted by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order are not in dispute and the same are being reproduced for the sake of convenience:-
"This order of mine shall dispose off application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The said application has been filed by applicant/ complainant stating therein that accused has two voter ID cards in his name. That complainant came to know about the same during testimony of CW 2 in civil suit bearing no. 208349/2016, filed by applicant/ complainant against the accused. That by getting two voter ID Cards, accused has committed the offence of cheating. That complainant gave a complaint dated 25.02.2021 to the SHO PS Jamia Nagar in this regard. That no action was taken on the said complaint. Hence, the present application. "
3. Action Taken Report was filed by concerned Inquiry Officer, Police Station Kalkaji before concerned Court, and after consideration of same, the application under section 156(3) Cr.PC along with complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C stood dismissed by concerned court. The relevant observations of Ld MM is follow :-
" It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since accused has committed the offence of cheating by getting two voter ID cards issued in his name, it was obligatory for the police to lodge FIR in the present matter. However, I do not find myself to be in agreement with this submission. It has been stated in the ATR that there is only one voter ID card bearing serial no. 722 in the name of the accused and the other voter ID card bearing serial no. 1272 is in the name of one Meena. The same has also been stated in para 4 of the present application. The same also stands corroborated from copy of voter list annexed with the ATR, which shows that voter ID card bearing serial no. 722 is in the name of the accused and the other voter ID card bearing serial no. 1272 is in the name of Meena and not the accused. Thus, allegations levelled by complainant Crl Rev. No. 02 of 2022 Aish Mohd Dost Vs State & Anr Page No. 2 of 6 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.01.04 12:21:28 +0530 appear to be untrue and false. From averments made in para 4 of the present complaint, it is clear that even complainant was aware of this factual situation and that the present complaint has been filed only with the purpose of putting pressure upon the accused in civil suit bearing no. 208349/2016.
In view of the above discussion, commission of no offence is disclosed. Hence, present application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accompanying complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed. "
4. Revisionist is aggrieved with the said order and has assailed the impugned order on various grounds which can be summarized as under :-
i) That the impugned is against the settled principle of law and as such same is bad in law as well as based on conjectures and surmises;
(ii) That Ld Trial Court erred in law and wrongly came to conclusion that respondent had only one voter ID and another ID is in the name of his sister Meena without going through the material available on record;
(iii) That Ld Trial Court erred in law by declining the prayer of revisionist for registration of FIR as the facts alleged disclosed commission of cognizable offences;
5. Ld. counsel for the revisionist advanced arguments on the line of grounds as taken in the instant revision petition. He forcefully argued that in the ATR, it was clearly mentioned that one of the voter ID card in the name of 'Meena' bears photograph of respondent no.2 which clearly makes out a case of fraud / cheating. It was argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Ld Magistrate was duty bound to order for registration of FIR as the facts averred in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences. It was urged that all the evidence is not within the possession of revisionist and assistance of police would be required for effective investigation and for Crl Rev. No. 02 of 2022 Aish Mohd Dost Vs State & Anr Page No. 3 of 6 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.01.04 12:21:38 +0530 unearthing the fraud played by respondent no.2. It was further urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed by passing appropriate directions for registration of the FIR in the instant case or in the alternative, revisionist be given opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his allegation.
6. I have heard contentions of Ld counsel for revisionist and perused the record.
7. In the matter of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
8. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 observed as under :
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible.
Crl Rev. No. 02 of 2022 Aish Mohd Dost Vs State & Anr Page No. 4 of 6
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.01.04
12:21:54 +0530
The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court.The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
9. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, this court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to substitute its own view with that of Ld. Trial Court until and unless the order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error or patent infirmity/illegality. In the instant case, as evident from record, Ld. Magistrate while narrating (in detail) the facts, passed a well reasoned detailed order, thereby dismissing the complaint as well as application under section 156 (3) Cr.PC of revisionist and therefore, this court cannot and rather ought not substitute its own view with that of Ld. Magistrate (while exercising its revisional jurisdiction) and thereby arriving at a different conclusion.
10. It is also evident from record that the case of revisionist at best is that the voter ID card in the name of 'Meena' i.e. sister of respondent no.2 bears his photograph. However, that by itself, is not sufficient to assume that any offence of cheating/fraud etc was committed in the instant case.
Crl Rev. No. 02 of 2022 Aish Mohd Dost Vs State & Anr Page No. 5 of 6
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.01.04
12:22:04 +0530
Admittedly, the said voter ID card is in the name of sister of respondent no.2 and not in name of respondent no.2, therefore, it cannot be said that the said ID card belongs to respondent no.2 merely because it bears his photograph. The case rather appears to be one of misprinting of photograph on the voter ID card due to inadvertent error of concerned Authorities than of any alleged fraud/cheating as contended by revisionist. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for revisionist failed to point out any patent illegality/ infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. With these observations, it is held that there is no patent illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
12. Copy of this judgment be sent to Ld Trial Court for information.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.01.04 12:22:14 +0530 Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL) Court on 4th January 2022 Additional Sessions Judge-05, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl Rev. No. 02 of 2022 Aish Mohd Dost Vs State & Anr Page No. 6 of 6