Delhi District Court
Chandra Kala vs Mewa Lal on 15 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE;FTC, E-COURT :SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 68/14
1. Chandra Kala
W/o Shri Raj Kumar
2. Upasana
D/o Shri Raj Kumar
3. Sonam
D/o Shri Raj Kumar
All the R/o D-1/337, Nand Nagri
Delhi - 110093
...................Revisionists/Complainants
Vs.
1. Mewa Lal
S/o Sh. Sonwari Lal
2. Sarita
W/o Sh. Indraj
3. Indraj
The accused No.1 to 3 are
R/o Village - Gadha, P.S. - Gambhirpur
Tehsil - Lal Ganj,
Distt. - Azamgarh (U.P.)
4. Chandra Kala
Page 1 of 8
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
5. Hiramani
W/o Sh. Vijendra
The accused No.4 and 5 are the
R/o E- 1/110, Nand Nagri
Delhi - 110093
6. I.O. concerned
On P.C.R. Call of the complainants made four times after
the serious incident at about 3.30 PM on 29.10.2013.
7. Station House Officer concerned.
Both the accused no.6 & 7 are the officials of
P.S. - Nand Nagri
Delhi - 110093
8. I.O. Concerned
office of the Inspector P.G. Cell
North - East District, Seelam, Delhi - 110053
9. Joint Commissioner of Police concerned
South - Eastern Range, Head Quarter, Delhi Police
Indraprastha Estate
.......................Respondents/Accused persons
Page 2 of 8
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionists have taken exception to the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate whereby thier prayer seeking direction for the registration of the FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not acceded to.
2. The trial court record has been summoned and perused. Arguments have been heard on the revision petition from the Ld. Counsel of revisionists and the Ld. APP.
3. The Revisionists/Complainants filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of offence punishable u/s 120- B/166/166-A/201/202/212/217/221/323/324/354A/379/452 & 506 R/W Section 34 IPC with the allegation that accused No.1 to 7 after making a criminal conspiracy beat the complainants and robbed the household articles after tress-passing into their house forcibly. Complainants suffered severe injuries on their person. Accused No.1 to 5 caught hold complainant No.2 Upasana and gave her blows on her stomach by holding her shoulder, hairs and even touched her breast. The complainants made telephone call to PCR at 5.30 pm but no police help was provided. PCR van took Chandra Kala to hospital but doctor refused to prepared the MLC. The same day i.e. on 08.11.13 doctor examined the complainant Upasana on telephonic call to PCR at about 6.30 pm. Meanwhile Page 3 of 8 accused No.1 to 5 broke open the lock of stairs of the first floor and entered into the room of the complainant at the first floor and took the leather jacket containing certain documents and Rs.800/- cash and an iron box containing clothes and blanket. It has been further stated in the complaint that accused No.8 & 9 committed the breach of section 154 R/W 156 Cr.P.C. which is an offence punishable u/s 166 A IPC. They are also liable to be punishable u/s 201/202/212/217/221 IPC.
4. Alongwith the complaint, the revisionists filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for direction to the police to register the FIR against the above named accused/respondents. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after obtaining the Status Report from the police and after hearing arguments dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. holding that there is no need for registration of the FIR and directed the complainant to bring her evidence. It is this order which has been challenged in revision.
5. The Ld. Counsel of the revisionists has argued that complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence and therefore the Magistrate was bound to order the registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police. It has been submitted that the revisionists/complainants have levelled very serious allegations against the respondents and the evidence in this regard can be collected only by the police agency. It is argued Page 4 of 8 that the respondents were required for custodial interrogation for recovery of the stolen goods. It is thus submitted that the impugned order dated 01.08.2014 is illegal, improper, unjustified and perverse.
6. The Ld. APP has supported the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate saying that there is no infirmity or impropriety in the orders passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and that the revisionists do not stand to loose anything as the Ld. Trial Court has granted them liberty to lead evidence.
7. Having heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the revisionists and after perusal of the Trial Court Record, I strongly feel that the Ld. Trial Court was justified in declining the request made by the complainants. It is not a case where the police can be of any real help. The incident allegedly took place on 08.11.13. The recovery of the leather jacket, cash or other goods almost after a gap of one month is almost a remote possibility. The complainant can substantiate the allegations made in her complaint and therefore the police assistance is not required for the collection of any sort of evidence.
8. Each case has to be decided and evaluated in the back drop of its peculiarity. Revisionist cannot, as a matter of right, claim that since she has been able to disclose the commission of cognizable offence, the court has no option but to direct the police Page 5 of 8 to register the FIR. Similar preposition came up for consideration before the Appex Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rausha vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and another (2009) 2 Supreme Court cases 363 wherein it was held that a Magistrate was not bound to exercise his jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Apex court held that where the Magistrate, after applying the mind, comes to the conclusion that the dispute was a private dispute in which police investigation was not necessary, he may direct Examination of the complainant and his witnesses in order to initiate and complete the procedure laid down under chapter XII of the Code.
9. Guidelines have been issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Subhkaran Luharuka & M/s Shree Ram Mills Ltd. & Ano. vs. State 2010 (3) JCC 1972 and according to such guidelines court should be satisfied that it was necessary to direct police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which was neither in possession of the complainant nor could be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of the complainant and the matter was such which called for investigation by the State Agency.
10. Ordering investigation u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. has to be after proper application of mind which cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. Normally, investigation is ordered by the Court only when Page 6 of 8 it is felt that keeping in mind the nature of allegations, it will not be possible for the complainant to collect the evidence and therefore assistance from police is sought. Court must not pass order directing registration of FIR in a mechanical manner or on the mere saying of the complainant. Power ought to be exercised properly in those cases where evidence is virtually beyond the reach of the complainant.
11. As per the Status Report filed by the police during enquiry, it was found that there was some property dispute between both the parties and the facts revealed that the dispute was civil in nature. While disposing the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the Ld. MM rightly relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v/s State 92 (2001) Delhi Law Times 217 & Subhakaran Laharuka & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.(Supra) and rightly observed that the evidence is within the reach of complainant and accused persons are known to the complainants and their identity is not in dispute.
12. The revisionists have also sought action against accused No.6 to 9 who are the police officials. On the other hand they are pressing for investigation by the police agency. In the case of Smt. Prem Hazara Vs. Satinder Singh Grewal 1985(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 256 the court held as under:-
Where a complaint is made against an officer of the Page 7 of 8 police the Magistrate should himself conduct the preliminary inquiry and not to refer the matter for investigation to a police officer even though such officer happens to be a superior officer of the police. The rationale behind this view is quite apparent. It is that apprehension in the mind of the complainant would certainly be that when a police officer were to make an inquiry in respect of his complaint, he i.e. the inquiry officer, may not remain so dispassionate towards the matter and may not be able to bring a detached mind to bear upon the inquiry. Thus, to remove any misapprehension on the part of the complainant with regard to the impartiality and disinterestedness of the forum of inquiry it was imperative in a case like the present not to refer the complaint for inquiry to another police officer.
13. In view of my aforesaid discussions, I do not find any infirmity and impropriety in the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court record be sent back with a copy of Judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAVINDER DUDEJA) COURT ON 15.11.2014. ASJ/FTC/E-COURT/SHDKKD/DELHI.
Page 8 of 8