Delhi District Court
Smt. Dhanwati Dixit vs (1) Sh. Ram Chander Dixit on 18 May, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH:ASJ-04
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Dhanwati Dixit
W/o Sh. Rakesh Dixit
R/o House No. 34, Shiv Mandir Gali
Maujpur, Delhi-110053 .....Revisionist
Versus
(1) Sh. Ram Chander Dixit
S/o Late Sh. Pyare Lal Dixit
R/o House No. 34, Shiv Mandir Gali
Maujpur, Delhi-110053
(2) Sh. Rajiv Dixit, S/o Sh. Ram Chander Dixit
(3) Sh. Sorav Dixit, S/o Sh. Rajiv Dixit
(4) Sh. Gaurav Dixit, S/o Sh. Rajiv Dixit
(5) Smt. Madhu Dixit, W/o Sh. Rajiv Dixit
(6) SHO of Police Station: Zafrabad, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Respondent No. 2 to 5 are
R/o House No. 34, 1st floor,
Shiv Mandir Gali, Maujpur, Delhi-53
Criminal Revision No. 15/11
18.05.2011
ORDER
1. This revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 07.03.2011 passed by Ms. Bhavani Sharma, Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 1 of 9 2 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, N/E, KKD Delhi, whereby the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C was dismissed in complaint case titled as "Smt. Dhanwati Dixit Vs. Sh. Ram Chander Dixit & Ors".
2. The notice of the revision petition was given to the State.
3. I have heard Sh. Rajan Lal, Advocate on behalf of the revisionist and Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State. Trial Court record was called. I have also gone through the record.
4. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that a complaint was filed by the complainant (revisionist herein) against accused No. 1 to 6 (respondents herein), U/s 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is averred in the original complaint that complainant and accused No. 1 to 5 are related to each other and are living jointly in the House No. 34, Shiv Mandir, Gali Maujpur, Delhi. Mother-in-law of the complainant was the owner of the said house property, who died. Accused No. 1 is the father-in-law of the complainant, accused No. 2 is the brother-in-law (jeth)of the complainant, accused No. 3 and 4 are nephews of the complainant and and accused No. 5 is the jethani of the complainant (Numbers are wrongly mentioned in the complaint). It is alleged that at the instigation of the accused No. 1, the accused No. 2 to 5 had beaten the Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 2 of 9 3 complainant and her husband on 26.06.2010. The complainant (revisionist herein) was also given threats for her and her husband for life. Thereafter, complainant made a complaint at 100 number to PCR. Complaint was also lodged by the complainant with the local police and police of PS Jafrabad, Delhi, lodged DD No. 12-B and police after registering Kalandra U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C against the accused persons, insisted the parties to compromise the matter, instead of registration the FIR against the accused persons. On 03.07.2010and 06.07.2010, she lodged a complaint against accused persons with ACP Seelampur and Commissioner of Police but no action was taken. The complainant also filed one complaint on 09.07.20101 with Secretary Rashtriya Mahila Ayog. It is further averred that accused No. 2 to 5 at the instigation of accused No. 1 gave beatings to her. She suffered injuries, fracture and complainant was medically examined at Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital and at Sant Parma Nand hospital on 26.06.2010 and 28.06.2010. The complainant has also filed Civil Suit against accused No. 1 to 5 for injunction, possession and damages etc. which is pending in the court. The matter was referred to to Mediation but accused No. 1 is not ready and willing to settle the matter. The complainant is also seeking the title of the property on the basis of will executed by her mother-in- law.
Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 3 of 9 45. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate called for Status Report from the police. Police reported that there is a dispute regarding property amongst the brothers and father. The dispute is pending in the court of Sh. Devender Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge. Both the parties are making complaint against each other. Kalandra U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C was made regarding the incident of beatings in which, she had sustained minor injuries and hence, the case was not registered. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate relying upon the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in "M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State : 2001 IV AD (DELHI)" opined that complainant herself is in possession of all the evidence and for collecting the same, intervention of police is not required. Hence, Ld. M.M refused to direct the police to register the FIR and the matter was listed for recording of pre- summoning evidence. Hence the present revision petition.
6. The impugned order is assailed on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has not considered the cited judgments cited by them. It is further submitted that the cognizable offence has been made out, Ld. M.M is bound to issue direction for registration of the FIR. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has cited the following judgments :-
(1) Judgment of Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "G.C Nautiyal & Others Vs. State & Others, 2002 III AD (DELHI) Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 4 of 9 5 1040". In the said case, the petitioners were the officials of Excise Department and respondent No. 4 was the factory owner. Both sides have lodged a complaint to the police i.e R3 who register an FIR on R-4's complaint but failed to do so on petitioner's complaint. In the said case, factory of R4 identified for evasion of central excise duty.
Petitioners formed into a preventive team to conduct its check/inspection. They claim that they equipped by proper authorization in terms of their departmental circular dated 18.12.92, entered R-4's factory premises and disclosed their identity by showing their identity cards but R-4 barged in and shouted at them and threatened to shoot them. He refused to listen to them and instead made telephone calls to some police officials and persons. Later, police arrived on the scene, checked their identity cards, took them to Jahangir Puri Police Station and detained them there. They made written complaint to R-3 alleging obstruction in the discharge of their duty by R-4 but next day, they found that R-3 had taken the cognizance of factory owner's complaint and register the FIR against them but had failed to take any action on their complaint. On these facts, the Hon'ble High Court has directed that once the complaint is received, it is the duty of the police to register the Fir and investigate.
Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 5 of 9 6(2) Judgment of Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "Abhay Nath Dubey Vs. State of Delhi & Ors., 2002 VI AD (DELHI) 528". In the said case, petitioner's son died in suspicious circumstances. He was married with one Neelam and was living with her at his father- in-law's place with one Ram Nandan, a tenant there. Petitioner received a telephonic message that his son was in a serious condition taken to RML Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Petitioner informed the police about suspecting the murder but no action was taken by the police. Then, he filed the Writ Petition and court had directed the police to register the FIR.
(3) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr., 2006 Crl.L.J 788". In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the powers of Magistrate to direct the registration of the FIR for the purpose of investigation.
(4) Judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "Laxminarayan Gupta & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police, 2006 III AD (Crl.) (DHC) 288". In the said case, Hon'ble High Court came across the question "whether the police is under a statutory obligation to register FIR on the basis of a complaint made/information given by a Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 6 of 9 7 citizen disclosing cognizable offence(s) and to take up the investigation or it has any discretion to make preliminary inquiry into the veracity and correctness of the allegations made in the complaint and not to register the FIR". The Court having notice the fact that complainant claims to be advocate of Supreme court aged about 70 years and is tenant on the second floor of a house. He felt aggrieved and intimidated by certain acts of commission and omission on the part of his landlady and her agents and servants. The acts complaint by him prima-facie disclose several cognizable offences. Therefore, it was held that police was under a statutory obligation to register the FIR and take up the investigation.
(5) Judgment of Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "Kuldip Singh Vs. State, 1994 II AD (DELHI) 445". In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court held that the police cannot refuse to register the FIR on receiving the complaint of cognizable offence.
(6) Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as "Sukhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P, 2006 Crl. L.J. 4816", wherein it was held that police is duty bound to register all the information which disclosed commission of cognizable offence. There is no scope for the police to refuse Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 7 of 9 8 the registration of the FIR.
7. Now coming to the facts of the present case. There is no quarrel to the legal proposition that police is duty bound to register the FIR, in case, the cognizable offence is disclosed. However, the Magistrate has been given discretion in case of receiving complaint, which disclose the cognizable offence either to proceed himself after taking the cognizance and recording the pre-summoning evidence or to direct the police to investigate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C after registration of the FIR. However, to exercise all these discretions is judicious exercise, therefore, the superior courts have laid the guidelines to exercise the jurisdiction.
8. As per the judgment relied upon by Ld. Trial Court, Magistrate should direct the registration of the FIR only in those cases, where it is not possible for the complainant to collect the evidence himself and the matter requires investigation. Further, in the cases where personal relations are involved and unless the allegations are very serious, the Magistrate should refrain from exercising the jurisdiction for directing the registration of the FIR. Thereby, involving the police in the matter.
9. In the present case, the complainant (revisionist herein) herself is the witness alongwith her husband. She has Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 8 of 9 9 filed the photographs showing the injuries sustained by her and her husband. She has also filed the casualty ticket of Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital and OPD registration of Sant Parma Nand hospital whereby the injuries are recorded. Therefore, the complainant is in the possession of all the evidence herself and keeping in view the fact that admitted Civil Dispute is pending between the parties and they are closely related with each other, I am of the opinion that Magistrate has rightly declined to direct the police to register the FIR and proceeded with recording the pre-summoning evidence.
10. Accordingly, as per the discussion above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. The trial Court Record alongwith copy of the order be sent back to the Trial Court. The Criminal Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today i.e on 18/05/2011 (GURDEEP SINGH) Additional Sessions Judge Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 9 of 9