Delhi District Court
Dhan Raj Aggarwal vs The State on 19 December, 2012
ID No.02406R0301432012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 66/2012
Unique ID No.02406R0301432012
Dhan Raj Aggarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan Dass,
R/o A28, Maharzani Enclave,
Hasthal Gaon, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110059. ........Revisionist
Versus
The State ..........Respondent No. 1
Sanjay Seth,
S/o Shri S. K. Seth,
Prop. M/s. Touch,
1623A/13, Gobindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi19,
Having office at
M/s. Touch,C42, Sector6, Noida
Anil Sharma ..........Respondent No. 2
Hari ..........Respondent No. 3
Nav Deep ..........Respondent No. 4
(At : M/s. Touch
C42, Sector - 6, Noida)
Instituted on : 04th December, 2012
Argued on : 19th December, 2012
Decided on : 19th December,2012
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, whereby an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist has been Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 1/7 ID No.02406R0301432012 dismissed.
2. In brief, background facts, leading to the filing of this revision petition are that complainant placed an order for supply of a machine and some other articles with the Respondent No. 1 and 2 at a total purchase price of Rs.16,90,000/. As per the purchase order, respondent were required to import the above said machines at their own, for which a certificate of ImporterExporter Code (IEC) was also obtained by accused persons vide IEC No. 0510062130 dated 16.12.2010 in complainant's name. It is alleged that respondent kept and used the machines in the Exhibition held at New Delhi from November, 2010 to January, 2011, which resulted into damage to the machine. It is alleged that the said damaged machine was delivered to the complainant on 12.01.2011. Complainant found that the machine was not working. It is alleged that in May 2011, complainant returned the machine to Respondent No. 1 and requested him to refund the full amount and the respondent no.1 compelled the Complainant to accept Rs.13,00,000/ and issued three bearer cheque, two for Rs.5,00,000/ and one for Rs.3,00,000/. It is alleged that the complainant received the payment against two cheque and one cheque for Rs.5,00,000/ was dishonoured. On 26.09.2011 at 02:00 pm, respondent No. 1 and 2 called complainant at their Noida Office and respondents physically man handled him blows and kicks and snatched a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ against which the payment was to be handed over to him. It is alleged that the Respondent got signed a Settlement Deed from the complainant under duress. On the above allegations, a complaint for Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 2/7 ID No.02406R0301432012 proceeding against respondents under section 327/341/386/387/406/ 420/506/107/ 34/120B IPC was filed.
3. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. L. M. Grover, Learned Counsel for the revisionist and and Sh. Wasi Ur Rehman, Learned Addl. PP for the State and have perused trial Court record carefully.
4. Learned Counsel for revisionist submitted that it was brought to the notice of the Learned MM that the Petitioner had lodged a written complaint with the Police Station Gobindpuri on 03.04.2012 stating that the cognizable offences punishable U/s 327/341/386/387/406/420/506/120 B/34 IPC have been committed by the accused persons, however the Police officials failed to register an FIR. It is submitted that the Ld. MM while deciding the application under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure, failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 154 Cr.P.C were mandatory in nature, whereby the police officials are duty bound to register the FIR on disclosure of cognizable offences. In the present case the Police Officials failed to register FIR despite disclosure of cognizable offences vide a written complaint dated 03.04.2012. It is submitted that the Learned MM further failed to appreciate that the genuineness or creditability of the complaint is not to questioned at the preliminary stage and cannot be the basis of refusal for registering FIR, where cognizable offences have been disclosed.
5. In support of his submissions, Learned Counsel referred "Ramesh Kumari vs State of Delhi 2006 I AD (Cr.) SC 505", wherein it was observed Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 3/7 ID No.02406R0301432012 that, "if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid down before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information". He submits that in "Lallan Chaudhary vs State of Bihar 2006 (3) JCC 1731, it was observed that Section 154 of the code casts a statutory duty upon police officer to register the case, as disclosed in the complaint and then to proceed with the investigation. The mandate of section 154 is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station, such police officer has no other option except to register the case on the basis of such information. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not relevant or credible. In other words, reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are not the conditions precedent for registering a case under section 154 of the code.
6. Learned Counsel argued that similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled "Priya Gupta Vs The State 2007 (2) JCC 1330". It is submitted that the Ld. MM disposed of the application under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure in a mechanical manner even Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 4/7 ID No.02406R0301432012 without assigning any justification and in the complaint revisionist has stated about the commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons, which can be corroborated with the receipts, settlement deed etc. filed alongwith the complaint. It is submitted that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate that the Petitioner/Complainant has already placed on record documentary and cogent evidences alongwith the complaint which corroborates the contention and submissions made by the complainant. There are various aspects which required proper investigation as the same would otherwise be not available. Learned Counsel submits that several issues involving investigations are to recover and retrieve the cheated amount which could be effected at the instance of the accused persons as per requirement of Sec.27 of Evidence Act 1872 and to nab them; to find out as to why the accused persons physically manhandled and snatched the cheque for Rs.5 Lakhs from the complainant?; to identify the unknown accused persons who helped the accused No.1 in kicking and thrashing the complainant?; to find out as to why the accused persons used the machine in the Exhibition which was imported specifically for the use of complainant?; to ascertain as to why the accused persons forced complainant's son to sign the Settlement Deed?; to discover previous and subsequent conduct of the accused persons so as to procure evidence to prove the dishonest intention?; to find out the motive of the accused persons in committing the cheating against the complainant?; to find out as to why the accused persons are using the delaying tactics after having received materials from the complainant?; to enquire whether the Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 5/7 ID No.02406R0301432012 accused persons are habitually involved in criminal activities of dodging other persons also or had criminal background and to know whether they have any other culprits / associates in committing the criminal conspiracy?; to enquire whether the accused persons had dishonest and malafide intention right from the beginning?
7. According to Learned Counsel, for all these questions, evidence cannot be led, and all these facts require thorough investigation by the police. He argued that requisite directions may be issued to the concerned police officials for registering the FIR under relevant provisions Indian Penal Code. On considering the record, to my mind no such inquiries as desired by Learned Counsel for revisionist are required to be made in order to proceed further against the accused.
8. During argument, on seeking clarification, complainant could not give any answer as to why he had not lodged any complaint at Noida or at Delhi on 26.09.2011 itself or soon thereafter. He entered into a settle with the respondent on 13.02.2012 and thereafter file the complaint with the police on 03.04.2012.
9. Case is based on documentary evidence. Revisionist himself has stated about the receipt, settlement deed dated 13.02.2012. The identity of the accused is known to the complainant and all the material evidence is within the reach of the complainant.
10. Learned Magistrate had to consider the factual matrix and the need or necessity of police investigation in the case before him. Learned Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 6/7 ID No.02406R0301432012 Magistrate had to make an opinion that investigation was required and will be conducive to justice. In the instant case, ld. Trial Court has given an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence.
11. To my mind, it is not at all a case, where police assistance is required for breaking the case and discovering some evidence which the complainant was unable to collect of his own. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that Learned Trial Court was justified in declining the request of the complainant to issue directions to police under Section 156 (3) of the code and finds no error in the impugned order. No interference, thus, is called for by this Court. Revision petition is dismissed. Copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to Learned Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA)
open court on Additional Sessions Judge04
19 December, 2012
th
(SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi
Dhanraj Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. CR 66/2012 7/7