Delhi District Court
Deepak Tanwar vs The State on 21 September, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMENDER RANA,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
In Crl. Appeal No.53/2019
Case No.281/2019
CNR No. DLND01-0227782-2019
Deepak Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Niranjan Tanwar
R/o WZ-548, B-1/2, Naraina Village
New Delhi. ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State
2. Anit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
R/o WZ-548, B-1/2, Naraina Village
New Delhi.
3. Suresh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
R/o WZ-548, B-1/2, Naraina Village
New Delhi.
4. Geeta
W/o Sh. Anit Kumar
R/o WZ-548, B-1/2, Naraina Village
New Delhi.
5. Shakuntala
W/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
R/o WZ-548, B-1/2, Naraina Village
New Delhi. ... Respondents
Petition received on assignment : 30.11.2019
Arguments on petition concluded : 14.09.2021
C. A. No. 53/2019
.Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors
2
Date fixed for pronouncement : 21.09.2021
Date of pronouncement : 21.09.2021
ORDER
1. By way of the instant order, I propose to dispose of an appeal filed u/s. 278 Cr.P.C. by Sh. Deepak Tanwar (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') impugning the order dated 31.10.2019, whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant herein has filed a criminal complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C., accompanied with an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C., alleging that on 08.10.2018, accused persons gave beatings to the complainant. They also hurled abuses and used filthy language. They also threatened the complainant of dire consequences. Complainant suffered serious head injuries. Complainant remained in hospital for three days and he was advised to consult Neuro Surgeon. Thus, complainant alleged that he suffered grievous injuries in the incident. The complainant filed complaint in this regard before the concerned PS and to other higher police authorities, however, no action was taken by the police. Consequently, the appellant approached the Ld. Magistrate by moving a complaint u/s 200 CrPC accompanied with an application u/s 156 (3) CrPC.
Vide order dated 31.10.2019, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the applicaton u/s 156 (3) CrPC and directed the complaint to lead pre-summoning evidence.
3. Aggrieved by the above-said order dated 31.10.2019, appellant has preferred the instant appeal. However, during the course of instant proceedings on 01.04.2021, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that inadvertently the appeal was filed u/s 278 Cr.P.C and the instant petition may C. A. No. 53/2019 .Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors 3 kindly be treated as a revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C as mere wrong mentioning of the provision should not be dis-entitled the petitioner from seeking redressal of his grievances. Accordingly, the instant petition is treated as a revision petition.
4. Vide order dated 31.10.2019, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. observing that commission of any cognizable offence is not disclosed by the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly posted the matter for pre-summoning evidence.
5. Assailing the said order dated 31.10.2019, the petitioner challenges the same on the following grounds:-
(i) The order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the facts established on record. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed ignoring the facts and documents filed by the petitioner in the complaint u/s 200 CrPC.
(ii) The impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court mechanically without considering the facts and pleadings on record.
(iii) The impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court wrongly, without applying judicial mind, blindly reliying upon the status report filed by the Investigation Agency.
(iv) The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the medial record and discharge summary of the petitioner wherein it is specifically mentioned that at the time of discharge, petitioner was advised to undergo neurosurgery which clearly shows that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. It is further C. A. No. 53/2019 .Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors 4 submitted that the petitioner remained hospitalized for 3 days and thus the injuries sustained by appellant were not simple in nature.
6. In view of the same, it is argued that the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 deserved to be set aside and this court should further take cognizance and summon the accused persons for trial u/s 304/506/34 IPC.
7. On the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP has forcefully argued that the instant case arose out of a petty dispute between neighbours, who also happens to be a family members and thus the Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
8. It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi) that :-
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s156. But cases, where Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such, declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified''.C. A. No. 53/2019
.Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors 5
9. In the case at hand, I do not have any reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Ld. Trial Court for the following reasons;-
(i) The revisionist appears to be in control of the entire evidence.
(ii) The injuries sustained by him are reported to be simple in nature.
(iii) Ld. Counsel for revisionist has failed to point out any grievous injuries inflicted to the petitioner as defined u/s 320 IPC.
(iv) Police intervention in the instant matter is not going to serve any purpose as the facts alleged are simple in nature and nothing as such is required to be recovered.
(v) The identity of the accused persons is well established. The case of the complainant can be prosecuted solely upon the oral testimony of the witnesses.
10. In view of the above, I cannot but disagree with the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the impugned order is bad or erroneous in law. 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 C. A. No. 53/2019 .Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors 6 refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
11. Considering the totality of circumstances, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the findings of the Ld. Trial Court. Consequently, placing reliance upon the observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court Court in the matter of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
12. Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned with a copy of this order.
13. Copy of the order be given dasti to all the concerned and the same may also be immediately uploaded upon the Court's website.
14. File of present appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court
On 21.09.2021 ( Dharmender Rana)
ASJ-02/NDD/PHC/ND
C. A. No. 53/2019
.Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors
7
In Crl. Appeal No.53/2019
Case No.281/2019
CNR No. DLND01-0227782-2019
Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors.
21.09.2021
Present: None for petitioner.
Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State/Respondent.
Vide separate order, the present appeal is dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned with a copy of this order.
File of present appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02/NDD/PHC/ND 21.09.2021 C. A. No. 53/2019 .Deepak Tanwar Vs. State & Ors