Delhi District Court
Neha Anand And Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CR. REVISION NO. 167/2024
CNR No.DLST01-003679-2024
1. Neha Anand
D/o Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh Anand,
2. Nirupam Anand
W/o Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh Anand,
Both, R/o 5, South Drive,
DLF Chatterpur Farms, Delhi ... REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH SHO, PS Mehrauli
... RESPONDENT
Date of Filing : 19.04.2024
Arguments Heard : 09.07.2024
Date of Decision : 24.07.2024
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the above mentioned criminal revision petition filed by the revisionists whereby they have challenged the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, whereby learned MM-05 has condoned the delay of 1005 days in filing the charge sheet and had taken cognizance of the alleged offences in case bearing CR CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 1 of 30Cases No. 656/2022 titled as 'State Vs. Neha Anand & Ors.' FIR No. 1115/2016, PS Mehrauli. The revision petition has been filed well within the limitation period.
2. On the statement of complainant SI Deep Chand, FIR No. 1115/2016, PS Mehrauli was registered against both the revisionists U/s 279/186/353/34 IPC on 05.05.2016. However, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 02.02.2022, U/s 279/186/353/506/34 IPC along with application for Condonation of delay. The said delay application was allowed by the Ld. MM vide the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, whereby in addition to condoning the delay in filing the charge sheet, cognizance of the alleged offences was taken also by the Ld. MM.
3. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are that on 04.05.2016, SI Deep Chand along with staff reached in the area of DLF Chattarpur Farm in private car no. HR36-U- 0236 white color swift car in search of one Sumit @ Sunny Walia wanted in case FIR No. 280/2013, U/s 376/506 IPC, PS Vasant Vihar against whom NBWs were issued by the Court. At about 10.15 PM, he spotted said Sumit driving DL-1CS-4600 Audi Q-7 Blue Color car in the area of DLF Chattarpur Farms which car was chased by SI Deep Chand and accused Sumit left the said car near South Drive, DLF Chatterpur Farms and fled away. SI Deep Chand left Ct. Subhash with the car and went in CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 2 of 30search of the accused in dark area. In the meanwhile, car No. DL-1CT-4223 Mercedes White color came where in accused Neha Anand and Nirupama Anand were present. Neha Anand claimed herself to be wife of Sumit Walia and sat in the said Audi car despite being restrained and she drove the said Audi car by damaging swift car of SI Deep Chand from front side. The other lady namely Nirupama Anand claimed herself to be mother of Neha and she did not stop her daughter Neha. It is stated that both Neha Anand and Nirupama Anand had obstructed the public servants in discharge of their official duties. On these allegations, FIR U/s 279/186/353/34 IPC was registered. Police conducted requisite investigation and later added Section 506 IPC and filed charge sheet on 02.02.2022 i.e. after around 6 years of registration of FIR along with the application of condonation of delay.
4. In the condonation application, IO SI Pradeep Kumar has pleaded that during investigation four IOs have been changed i.e. SI Bansi Lal, SI Satender Gulia, SI Amrender, SI Hukum Chand and lastly by SI Pardeep Kumar. It is stated that IO obtained permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C from ACP, Vasant Vihar and thereafter filed charge sheet. In the condonation of delay application, IO stated that previous IOs could not complete investigation within time. He stated that he could not file charge sheet owing to Covid-
CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 3 of 3019 Pandemic. The application for condonation of delay was forwarded by concerned SHO & ACP.
5. Ld. counsel for the revisionist/accused filed reply to the condonation application before the Trial Court as per which alleged offence took place on 04.05.2016, limitation period to take cognizance qua Section 279/186 IPC, which is one years, expired on 04.05.2017. Limitation period qua Section 353/506 IPC which is three years expired on 04.05.2019 as per provisions of law. The charge sheet was filed on 02.02.2022 with delay of 1005 days after expiry of limitation period. Section 506 IPC was added after 5 years. No charge sheet was filed for 1070 days despite conducting of mechanical inspection of vehicle and recording of statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The delay has not been properly explained by respondent/State as per Section 473 Cr.P.C. It is further stated in the reply that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., there is bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation, which is reproduced as under:-
"Section 468-Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation (1). Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall taken cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2). The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if offence is punishable with fine only.
CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 4 of 30(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.."
6. Vide impugned order dated 28.03.2024, Ld. MM condoned the delay and took cognizance of the alleged offences. The Ld. MM in its order discussed provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C as per which limitation have been prescribed for various categories of offences as well as Section 473 which deals with extension of limitation period. It is observed in the impugned order that the Court can take cognizance after expiry of limitation period if it is satisfied on facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. The relevant findings recorded by the Ld. MM in the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 are reproduced as under:-
"7. At the outset, it is noted that the FIR bearing no. 1115/2016 is dated 05.05.2016. The charge-sheet has been filed before this Court on 02.02.2022. The penal provisions under which the charge-sheet has been filed are Section 279/186/353/506/34 IPC. The limitation period prescribed for offences under Section 279 IPC and 186 IPC is 1 (one) year and the limitation prescribed for Section 353 IPC and 506-I IPC is 3 (three) years in accordance with Section 468 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, a cumulative period of CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 5 of 30three years was available for the purpose of limitation and the same expired on 05.05.2019. Hence, there is a delay of approximately 2 years 9 months in the filing of the charge-sheet.
8. The IO has preimarily relied upon the Covid 19 pandemic which occurred in the interim period for explainaing the delay in filing of the charge sheet. This court is acquainted with the fact that the Covid 19 pandemic had engulfed the nation from month of March 2020 onwards and continued in the years 2021 and early 2022. ....... This court is also congnizant of the immense difficulties faced by the police officers during the pandemic while discharging their duties in maintaining law and order and while conducting inquiries and investigation. It is noted that the permission/sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C. could only be obtained from ACP, Vasant Vihar on 02.11.2021.
11. Co-accused Nirupama Anand was laso present at the scene of crime who also levelled allegations on the police officers and attempted to intimidate them. The allegations provided in the charge sheet are hence of a serious nature. It can be prima facie noted that the accused persons not only obstructed the police officers in the course of their duties, but also attempted to attack the police officers in their aggressive manner. In the consisered opinion of this court, a denial of ognizance in the prsent case shall prejudice the rights of public servants/police officers who were criminally obstructed in the CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 6 of 30performance of their duties. The accused persons must stand trial for the offences that ae levelled against them and must not be allowed to evade the due process of law. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the present application."
7. Ld. MM allowed the condonation of delay application by appreciating that Covid-19 pandemic engulfed from March 2020 and continued in 2021 and early 2022 during which there were heavy restrictions and police officials were busy in law and order arrangements. The Ld. MM further noted that permission/sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C. could only be obtained from ACP, Vasant Vihar on 02.11.2021. It is further observed in the impugned order that offence is serious in nature as accused persons obstructed public servants in discharge of their public functions. It is stated in the impugned order that the allegations against accused Neha are that she drove the car and bumped the car of complainant and accused Nirupama leveled allegations against police officials and intimidated them. In addition to allowing the condonation application, Ld. MM took cognizance of alleged offences.
8. Revisionists have challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:-
CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 7 of 30
(a) that Ld. MM has condoned delay of almost 3 years on the basis of the material which is not available on record;
(b) that respondent/State has failed to give any reasonable and plausible explanation for delay of 1005 days in investigation and filing of charge sheet and the explanation so given is vauge and does not meet the test of 'properly explained' as per Section 473 Cr.P.C;
(c) that change of investigating officer is no ground for condoning the delay in filing charge sheet and revisionists cannot be made to suffer for change of IOs on four occasions;
(d) that despite short facts and scope of investigation being so narrow and complainant himself is an police official, there was no reason for the police to file charge sheet after 6 ½ years from the date of incident;
(e) that provisions of section 167 and 468 Cr.P.C have not been considered;
(f) that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the limitation period expired on 04.05.2019 i.e. much prior before onset of lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic on 24.03.2020;
(g) that respondent has failed to explain delay of 1005 days in filing charge sheet over and above expiry of 3 years of limitation period;
(h) that in 'Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd', Civil appal Nos. 3007-3008 CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 8 of 30of 2020 vide judgment dated 18.09.2020, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "What was extended by the above order of this court was only 'the period of limitation' and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute"
(i) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that condonation application fails to satisfy the twin conditions postulated U/s 473 Cr.P.C. (a) Explanation of delay; and
(b) necessity of interest of justice, which section can be resorted to only in exceptional cases where the State or the complainant have been diligent in perusing their remedies;
(j) that Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that revisionist Neha is a housewife who has given birth to a baby and revisionist Nirupam is a senior citizen who is suffering from old age ailments and is a cancer patient and her husband is paralyzed for last 13 years and is visually impaired also;
(k) that no complaint U/s 2(d) of Cr.P.C. was filed satisfying the requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C and no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable U/s 186 IPC except on a complaint in writing of a public servant;
(l) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C. is time barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C and no cognizance could be taken on the basis of the same;
CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 9 of 30(j) that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out as the facts mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet do not meet the ingredients of said offences and section 506 IPC was belatedly added;
(k) that the impugned order is silent about sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C and taking of cognizance and summoning of revisionists has been passed in mechanical manner;
9. Revisionists have relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention:-
(i) 'Santokh Singh Chawla vs. State of NCT of Delhi', 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773; (para 10, 13, 16-19)
(ii) 'Shabnam Hashmi vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.', 2024 SCC OnLine Del 778; (para 5, 13, 14)
(iii) 'Sachin & Ors vs. State of NCT of Delhi' 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8968; (para 23-28);
(iv) Mohan Kukreja vs. Sate Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine el 6398; (para no. 10-17)
(v) Vasudev vs. State, Crl. Misc. (M) 117/82 vide order dated 14.09.1984; (para no. 6);
(vi) Vikas vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC ONLine Del 8605;
10. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that Ld. MM failed to consider that the grounds on which condonation of delay was sought were unjustified. It is argued that complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 10 of 30repeated change of IOs or delay in obtaining permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C on the part of investigating agency. It is argued that delay of 1005 days has not been properly explained in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C. It is argued that revisionists/accused have been motivatedly targeted as they are relatives of alleged accused Sumit who is wanted in another case U/s 376 IPC, the investigation of which was marked to SI Deep Chand/complainant herein.
11. On the other hand, Ld. CPP for State has argued that Ld. MM has passed a reasoned order considering all the contentions of the the revisionists and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
12. Apart from hearing the arguments from both the sides, record has also been perused carefully.
13. The scope and ambit of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to the extent of ascertaining and examining an order of finding on the scales of correctness, legality or propriety or to see that there is no irregularity in the proceedings.
14. It is observed in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Karan Mehdu AIR 2017 SC 796 that the scope of this provision U/s.397 Cr.P.C. is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceedings.
CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 11 of 3015. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, it was observed that the revisional court is empowered to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. Object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. It is, thus, evident that revision has a limited scope to examine the record/findings on the aforesaid parameters.
16. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court in Omlata & Ors. Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. (supra), has held as under :
"11. At the time of taking cognizance a Magistrate is required to judicially apply the mind and be satisfied on the basis of the facts what are borne out from the statement of the complainant as made in the complaint or what are borne out from the report of the Investigating Officer involved or what are the surrounding facts and circumstances based on the prima facie documents and materials in existence or what the contents of the FIR are. The Magistrate is to be aware of the situation] position as it is at the time of taking cognizance because what is before him are mere allegations which are nothing but a bundle of facts made by a complainant at the preliminary stage which are yet to be tested.
12. In effect, it is the satisfaction of the magistrate which plays a predominant role while taking cognizance coupled with the fact that there are enough materials to convince him for taking such CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 12 of 30
cognizance. The order passed by the. Magistrate taking cognizance has to be a speaking one justifying the steps taken "by him which convinced him of taking cognizance. Such order has to be expressive and reflective of the" bare minimum reasons. The order taking such cognizance ought to reflect that the Magistrate is indeed aware of and has knowledge of the facts involved. The said order should sound convincing.
13. Any order by which the Magistrate is taking cognizance out not to be a routine exercise which is a mere knee-jerk reaction which is automated. If there is such an order taking cognizance then the same would be perfunctory and not reflective of the Magistrate having applied its mind. The Magistrate cannot be mechanical in his approach. More so, whence at the end of the day the Magistrate is setting into motion the judicial machinery against the alleged accused person which inevitably involve their personal liberty and freedom. Therefore, the Magistrate must necessarily exercise due 'care, caution and precaution while taking all the relevant factor(s) into consideration.' However, it in no way means that the Magistrate has to give detailed reasons while taking cognizance as the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has to only ensure that he does not pass a blanket order without expressing his opinion and judicial mind.
14. This Court finds able support in Sanjit Bakshi vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Crl.M.C. 4177/2019), wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court has recently, while taking note of the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in various pronouncements, held that cognizance implies application of judicial mind' by the Magistrate to the facts as stated in a complaint or a police report or upon information received from any person that an offence has been CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 13 of 30
committed and-further that. He further submits that the learned MM while issuing summons to the petitioners failed to consider the fact that the present complaint against the petitioners has been filed by the 'respondent no.2 after almost 12 years and therefore, in view of the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC, the learned MM should not have taken the cognizance of the same. Even otherwise, he submits, that the said cognizance was taken in a cryptic way and without application of judicial mind".
17. Admittedly, the FIR was registered on 05.05.2016 and charge sheet was field on 02.02.2022 i.e. with a delay of 1005 days excluding limitation period of 3 years. The limitation period prescribed for offences U/s 279/186 IPC is one year from the date of FIR expired on 05.05.2017, whereas the limitation period prescribed for Section 353/506 IPC is three years, which expired on 05.05.2019. However, charge sheet was filed on 02.02.2022. As per the impugned order, IO has primarily taken the main ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing the charge sheet as Covid-19 pandemic, which has been discussed by the Ld. MM in its order. Though, Ld. MM has rightly given the explanation about the Covid-19 pandemic situation in its order which prevailed from March 2020 till early 2022, however, firstly he did not consider the fact that the limitation period qua all the offences expired on 05.05.2019 i.e. prior to the time when covid came into place. Secondly, perusal of entire charge sheet does not reveal any productive or substantial investigation being CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 14 of 30conducted by the police during the limitation period of 3 years and even thereafter during the delayed period of 3 years except adding of Section 506 IPC and obtaining sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C on 02.11.2021. This fact is evident from the dates of the preparation of the document/memos and proceedings conducted after registration of FIR, which are as under:-
SL. Description of Document Date of preparation No.
1. Rukka/Complaint of SI Deep Chand 05.05.2016
2. Endorsement on rukka/complaint by SI 05.05.2016 Bansi Lal
3. Registration of FIR No. 1115/16, PS 05.05.2016 Mehrauli, U/s 279/186/353/34 IPC
4. Preparation of Site Plan by IO SI Bansi 05.05.2016 Lal
5. Mechanical inspection of car HR-36-U- 05.05.2016 0236
6. Recording of statement of Ct. Sushil 05.05.2016 U/s 161 Cr.P.C
7. Recording of statement of SI Deep 05.05.2016 Chand U/s 161 Cr.P.C
8. Recording of statement of Ct. Subhas 05.05.2016 U/s 161 Cr.P.C
9. Notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C. to Neha and 23.06.2020 Nirupama
9. Application seeking permission U/s 195 02.11.2021 CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 15 of 30
Cr.P.C. to ACP Vasant Vihar
10. Signatures of ACP, Mehrauli on the 27.11.2021 charge sheet and application for Condonation of delay to be filed before Ld. MM
11. Filing of charge sheet before the Ld. 02.02.2022 MM
18. Perusal of the aforesaid table showing creation/preparation of documents which are part of charge sheet reveals that despite preparation of site plan, conducting of mechanical inspection of vehicle and recording of statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C of Ct. Sushil, Ct. Subhash and SI Deep Chand on the same date of registration of FIR i.e. 05.05.2016, IO SI Bansi Lal or any subsequent IO did not bother to conduct even a single proceedings till the expiry of the limitation period which expired on 05.04.2019. The further proceedings after initial proceedings conducted on 05.05.2016 (date of registration of FIR) only took place on 23.06.2020, when the subsequent IO SI Amrender issued notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C. to accused Neha and Nirupama, that to after 3 years of expiry of limitation period on 05.05.2019. It is to be noted that as per application filed by last IO SI Pradeep Kumar along with charge sheet seeking condonation of delay, it can be seen that first IO SI Bansi Lal was the initial IO from 05.05.2016 till 10.04.2019 and upon his transfer, case file was further assigned to SI Satyender Gulia on 10.04.2019 who remained IO till CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 16 of 3016.04.2020. Thereafter, further investigation was assigned to SI Amrender on 16.04.2020 who only gave notice dated 23.06.2020 to Neha Anand and Nirupam Kaur Anand. Thereafter, on transfer of SI Amrender, further investigation was assigned to SI Hukum Chand on 04.12.2020 and on his transfer, further investigation was transferred to SI Pradeep on 15.10.2021, who moved application U/s 195 Cr.P.C. before ACP Vasant Vihar on 02.11.2021 and filed charge sheet on 02.02.2022 along with condonation of delay application.
19. Perusal of the aforesaid proceedings on record reveals that the investigation after registration of FIR remained initially with SI Bansi Lal from 05.05.2016 till 10.04.2019, SI Satyender Gulia from 10.04.2019 to 16.04.2020, SI Amrender from 16.04.2020 till 04.12.2020, SI Hukum Chand from 04.12.2020 till 15.10.2021 and lastly with SI Pradeep Kumar from 15.10.2021 till 02.02.2022, who finally filed charge sheet. It can be seen that substantial proceedings i.e. registration of DD entry and FIR, preparation of site plan, mechanical inspection and statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses were recorded /conducted on same date of registration of FIR i.e. 05.05.2016, as is apparent from the dates mentioned thereon. Admittedly, the proceeding dated 05.05.2016 have been conducted by SI Bansi Lal who was the initial IO. However, it is to be seen that said SI Bansi Lal did not CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 17 of 30conduct any proceedings during entire period of 3 years of limitation after conducting proceedings dated 05.05.2016 despite IO of the case, till he got transferred on 10.04.2019. Even the second IO SI Satyender Gulia who remained IO for one year w.e.f. 10.04.2019 till 16.04.2020 did not conduct any proceedings during his tenure of 12 months and remained silent on this case. The third IO SI Amrender who remained IO for about 8 months i.e. w.e.f 16.04.2020 till 04.12.2020 and only issued notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C. dated 23.06.2020 to accused persons during his tenure. The fourth IO SI Hukum Chand who remained IO for about 10 months i.e. w.e.f. 04.12.2020 till 15.10.2021 did not conduct any proceedings during his tenure. Finally, the fifth and the last IO SI Pradeep Kumar only obtained permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C. from ACP and filed charge sheet.
20. The conduct of each of the IO in series who were responsible to conclude the investigation not only shows their casual approach towards the investigation but also shows lack of sense of responsibility and commitment on their part, which was never even monitored by the concerned SHOs and ACP, leading to the present situation. The condonation delay application as well as the application U/s 195 Cr.P.C. and even the charge sheet are absolutely silent about any probable or proper explanation as to what investigation the respective IO had conducted CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 18 of 30during their tenure and why did they not conduct any investigation during their tenure and kept sitting silenton the investigation. It is relevant to note that the further investigation after the date of registration of FIR was got conducted only on 23.06.2020 i.e. after expiry of limitation period of 3 yeas on 05.04.2019. Subsequent IO SI Amrender issued notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C dated 23.06.2020 for the first time to the accused person i.e. after more than 4 years of registration of FIR. It may be mentioned that there were no covid pandemic restriction during the entire period of around 4 years from the date of registration of FIR. It is a settled law that IOs concerned ought to have completed investigation for offences U/s 279/186 IPC within one year and for offences U/s 353/506 IPC within 3 years from the date of registration of FIR i.e. 05.05.2016, which expired on 05.04.2019, which they have miserably failed to complete despite sufficient time available with them. It is further seen that substantial proceedings were already got completed on the date of registration of FIR itself i.e. 05.05.2016. The remaining investigation done by 4-5 IOs in the remaining period of around 6 years is limited to issuance of Notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C. on 23.06.2020 and obtaining permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C. on 02.11.2021.
21. It can be seen that SI Satyender Gulia and SI Hukum Chand did not conduct single proceedings during their CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 19 of 30tenure of 12 months and 10 months respectively while they were IO of the case, for which there is no explanation. Even SI Bansi Lal sat idle on investigation for about initial 3 years while there were no Covid restrictions, for which no explanation has been given. SI Amrender who remained IO for about 8 months issued a single notice U/s 41A on 23.06.2020. Perusal of record further reveals that despite the permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C was granted by ACP, Vasant Vihar on 02.11.2021, the charge sheet was filed on 02.02.2022 i.e. after 3 months for unexplained reasons. It is relevant to note that section 506 IPC was added after about 4 years of registration of FIR when statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of all witnesses including that of complainant were already recorded. No supplementary statement of complainant or any other witness was recorded at the time of adding Section 506 IPC after 4 years of registration of FIR.
22. It appears that in the present case all the police officials who remained IOs of the case from time to time conducted investigation selectively as per their whims and fancies and had taken the law of limitation as a right. Out of the total period of 6 years from the date of registration of FIR i.e. 05.05.2016 till filing of charge sheet on 02.02.2022, around initial 4 years were exclusively available with the IOs to complete the investigation of offences of minor nature which have limitation period of 1 & 3 years. The CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 20 of 30deliberate misconduct on the part of IOs is evident from the fact that substantial investigation was got conduct on the very first day of registration of FIR itself after, police did not conduct any productive investigation as can be seen on record. The plea of the IOs that due to Covid restrictions investigation got delayed does not inspire confidence as firstly substantial investigation was already complete on the date of registration of FIR and there is no plausible explanation given by initial 3 IOs for not conducting productive and pending investigation during initial 4 years and sitting idle. Even the last IO SI Pradeep Kumar in the application for condonation of delay has categorically mentioned that previous IOs did not complete the investigation well in time.
23. In the charge sheet, IO has stated that after Sunny Walia left his Audi car and IO went in his search in darkness, thereafter only accused Neha and Nirupam came in another car and Neha informed him that he is wife of Sumit Walia and Nirupama is mother of Neha. Hence, it can be seen that accused persons came afterwards in separate car and were not accompanying Sumit Walia or supported him in any manner. The nature and manner in which accused Neha and Nirupama obstructed SI Deep Chand has not been explained as they came later after Sumit Walia had already fled away, as per the version of the complainant. There is huge delay of 1005 days in filing CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 21 of 30of the charge sheet excluding the limitation period of 3 years.
24. No doubt, for the issuance of process, it is only to be seen whether there has been sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons but the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 has been challenged by the revisionists is regarding taking the cognizance by the learned MM and not only of the issuance of the process against the accused persons / revisionists. It is a settled law that at the time of taking cognizance, the court is not required to go into the merit of the case but when the matter is at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is also required to mention in detail the facts which have been taken into consideration for taking cognizance of the offence after considering the delay in filing the charge sheet in accordance of Section 468 Cr.P.C. The Ld. MM in the impugned order has categorically stated that there is delay of approx. 2 years and 9 months and limitation period for section 279/186 IPC is one year and for Section 353/506 IPC is three years.
25. Bare perusal of impugned order dated 28.03.2024, shows that learned MM has mentioned that he has taken the cognizance but he has not mentioned even the sections under which the cognizance has been taken and instead stated 'this Court hereby takes cognizance of the offences CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 22 of 30committed'. Ld. MM while appreciating the plea of the respondent/State regarding Covid Pandemic and giving findings did not peruse the relevant documents prepared by IOs during investigation. Accused Nirupama who is aged 72 years and accused Neha who has an infant child cannot be made to suffer for the deliberate misconduct of the police officials. At the same time, police officials cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own wrongs. It can be clearly inferred from record that there is a gross negligence and casual approach by the concerned IOs in respect of the investigation who have taken the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. as a right and have taken Courts for granted. There are apparent lapses on the part of the concerned SHO and ACP who has failed to explain what departmental action has been taken by them against the erring IOs for delay in investigation leading to delayed filing of charge sheet. Absolutely, there is no proper explanation to the delay in conducting investigation and it can be seen that none of the IO paid any heed to complete the investigation ignoring the importance of the case. The authoritative pronouncements relied upon by Ld. counsel for the revisionist supports his contention.
26. The argument of Ld. counsel for the revisionists regarding obtaining permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C with delay and not adopting proper procedure in this regard has been supported by authoritative pronouncements relied upon by CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 23 of 30revisionists. It is matter of record that complainant/SI Deep Chand filed filed complaint on 05.05.2016 with PS Mehrauli and permission for sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained on 02.11.2021 i.e. after more than 5 years of registration of FIR. No steps have been taken by the concerned IOs for obtaining permission from 05.05.2016 till 02.11.2021. Perusal of the application seeking permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C shows that the said application has been moved by last IO SI Pradeep Kumar and the application is undated. The said application is though forwarded by SHO, PS Mehrauli, however, the said forwarding by SHO is also undated and without any remarks. Finally, ACP, Vasant Vihar endorsed the said application on 02.11.2021 with remarks 'permitted'. It is not possible to ascertain as to when did the IO filed the said application and when it was forwarded by the SHO for onwards transmission of the same to ACP concerned who allowed the same on 02.11.2021 as it does not bear any date. It can be seen that the concerned ACP while allowing the application U/s 195 Cr.P.C. did not put a single query to the concerned IOs or raised any objection qua the absence of plausible explanation in the application. It is further to be seen that despite obtaining sanction U/s 195 Cr.P.C. on 02.11.2021, the charge sheet was filed with a delay of 3 months on 02.02.2022 for unexplained reasons of its delay. Revisionist has relied upon judgments CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 24 of 30passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-
(a) In case "State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh", (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding (Bar on taking cognizance after expiry of limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C) was pleased to observe :-
"36. The object of the Criminal Procedure code is putting a bar of limitation on presecutions was clearly to pevent the parties from filing cses after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court by filing vexatious and belated prosecution long after the date of the offence. ...... It is, therefore of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation. The prosecution against the respondesnt being barred by limitation the conviction as also the sentence of the respondent as also the entire proceedings culminating in the conviction of the respondent herein become non-est. For these reasons given above, we hold that the point of law regarding the applicability of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been correctly decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This Court has also taken the same vide in a number of decisions. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent will now be discharged from his bail bonds."
(b) In case "Sanofi India Limited & Anr vs. Union of India & Anr.", 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5609, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe :-
CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 25 of 30
"29. The right which is accrued to the accused as a result o the expiry of the limitation period is a valuable right that flows from the accused's right to a speedy and fair trial as conceptualised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordinlgy, the Cognizance that is taken by the Court in view of Section 473 Cr.P.C. extending the limitation period rquires notice to be issued to the accused, hearing of both the accused and the complainant, and the consequent decision must display the court's application of mind and should provide reasons for extending the limitation
30. It is trite law that it is the duty of the Court to see whether a complaint has been filed within limitation or not. Though Section 473 Cr.P.C. states that extension of period of limitation cannot be granted if the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do the interests of justice. There is no material on record to show that the trial court sought for any reasons for condoning the delay and further nothing is there to show that the State has made any endevour to explain the delay in filing the complaint."
31. A reading of the impugned orders of the learned trial Court in conjunction with the law of limitaion reveals to this Court that the learned trial court has erred in taking cognizance of Criminal Complaint No. 16817 of 2019 and that the impugned order dated CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 26 of 3030.09.2019 fails to justify as to why the issue of limitation was not raised in the impugned order.
(c) In case "Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Shonkh Techonologies Ltd & Ors", 2023 SCC OnLine Del 277, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding (Bar on taking cognizance after expiry of limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C) was pleased to observe :-
"It is therefore, in the considered oipinion of this Court that the period between 26.11.2007 to 03.06.2008 cannot be excluded for the purpose of counting limitation for filing of the complaint. Any other interpretation would result in adding words in the legislation, which is not permissible in the interpretative process of the provisions.
29. It is imperative for the court, taking cognizance, to apply its judicial mind as to whether the prosecution has been launched within limitation statutorily prescribed for a particular offence. The administrative approval or permission to convey that in the instant case, the Central Government is convinced for commission of the offence, should have been taken immediately after receipt of the reort and any delay on the part of the Central Government in taking the decision, cannot be construed to be in the benefit of the Cental Government that too when, the same has not been explained at all. In appropriate cse, under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., the courts are empowered to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 27 of 30
of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has properly been explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.
30. A perusal of application for condonation of delay does not explain any reason or steps taken by the Central government between 26.11.2007 to 03.06.2008. The only reason for condonation of delay sought for is to exclude the period between 26.11.2007 to 03.06.2008 as without any sanction or consent the SFIO could not have filed the said complaint. Since this court has already held that no "previous consent" or "Sanction" was necessiatated in terms of Section 242 read with Section 621 of the companies Act, therefore, the said period cannot be excluded, and even the period of limitation cannot be extended in the instant case."
27. In addition to the above judgments, revisionists have relied upon the following judgments in support of their contention that there is a bar on taking cognizance in the absence of a complaint under Section 2(d) as per the Mandate of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C:-
(i) 'Santokh Singh Chawla vs. State of NCT of Delhi', 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773; (para 10, 13, 16-19)
(ii) 'Shabnam Hashmi vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.', 2024 SCC OnLine Del 778; (para 5, 13, 14) CR No.167/2024 ;Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 28 of 30
(iii) 'Sachin & Ors vs. State of NCT of Delhi' 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8968; (para 23-28);
(iv) Mohan Kukreja vs. Sate Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine el 6398; (para no. 10-17)
(v) Vasudev vs. State, Crl. Misc. (M) 117/82 vide order dated 14.09.1984; (para no. 6);
28. In support of his contention to show that "Order taking cognizance must reflect judicial application of mind", revisionist has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Vikas vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC ONLine Del 8605;
(ii) SanJit Bakshi vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3614;
(iii) Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttranchal & Anr., (2008) SCC OnLine Del 3614;
29. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, it is evident that no proper/justifiable explanation has been given by the respondent/State for delay in filing charge sheet. Even the grounds on which the condonation of delay is sought are in contradiction with the material available on record. Permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C. has been obtained without following the due procedure and the same has been granted in casual and mechanical manner that too with a CR No.167/2024 ;
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 29 of 30great delay. No bonafide ground is made out to condone the delay of 1005 days in filing charge sheet excluding limitation period of 3 years. The gross negligence can be seen on the part of IOs for delayed investigation and even on the part of SHO and ACP concerned who failed to monitor the investigation and they forwarded and granted permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C. in casual manner, for which they need to be sensitized. Copy of this order be sent to DCP concerned to look into the matter and sensitize the police staff in this regard to avoid such negligent acts in future.
30. In view of the above findings and authoritative pronouncements, the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by learned MM, South, Saket whereby delay in filing of charge sheet was condoned and cognizance of the offences committed is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed.
31. A copy of this order be sent to learned MM, South, Saket for information .
32. Revision file be consigned to Record room.
MADHU Digitally signed
by MADHU JAIN
Announced in the open court JAIN Date: 2024.07.26
12:13:51 +0530
today on 24th July, 2024 (MADHU JAIN)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.167/2024 ;
Uploaded on 26.07.2024
Neha Anand & Anr. vs. State Page 30 of 30