Delhi District Court
Pooja Arora vs Shailendra Malik & Anr. on 3 July, 2018
: 1 :
Case No.
CR No. 459/17
Pooja Arora Vs Shailendra Malik & Anr.
03.07.2018
Present : Sh Anil Kumar Kaushik, ld counsel from DLSA for
petitioner with petitioner in person.
None for respondent.
Today is the last and final opportunity for arguments.
The respondents have not appeared. Hence, I have
proceeded to hear the petitioner on her application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. The order impugned is dated 4.7.2017
whereas the revision petition has been filed on 27.9.2017.
As per Article 131 of the Third Division - Applications,
PartI to the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963, the
Revision Petition could have been filed within a period of 90 days
from the date of order impugned. Hence, the present revision petition
is within limitation. The application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act stands
decided accordingly.
Arguments on the revision petition heard.
Put up for orders at 4 p.m.
(Manish Yaduvanshi)
ASJ05(West)/THC
03.07.2018
: 2 :
At 4.40 p.m.
ORDER (ORAL)
Present : None.
The complainant/petitioner alleged that on 8.6.2015, the respondents administered her some stupefying substance mixed in Tea and thus succeeded in withdrawing some jewellery from her bank besides a sum of Rs.3.5 lacs. She has further alleged that prior to it, on 23.5.2016, she had gone to respondents' residence at Rajiv Nagar to recover her belongings but she was manhandled due to which she also suffered fracture. She accordingly made a complaint to the police but since no action was taken, she thereafter filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondents alleging commission of offences punishable under Section(s) 34, 120B, 307, 325, 329, 338, 343, 379, 406, 417 and 418 IPC. She also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C which was dismissed on 4.7.2017. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present revision petition.
The primary argument made in support of the petition is that the Ld. Trial Court over looked the fact that the jewellery and cash is in possession of the respondents and it will not be possible for the petitioner to produce the same as its recovery can only be made by a specialized agency.
I have gone through the record including the status report furnished by the local police in the ld. Trial Court and the order passed thereupon which is impugned herein.
The Ld. Trial Court has relied on the ratio of judgment in : 3 : M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs State 2002 CRI.L.J.NOC 333 (Delhi). On the basis of observations in the judgment in M/s Skipper Beverages (Supra), the Court held that no cognizable offence was seen to have been committed and hence, there was no justification in directing the police to register an FIR. The view of the Court is supplemented by its opinion that no field investigation is required on the allegations and there is no ground on which the police assistance is required.
The Ld. Trial Court has categorically observed that all the evidence is within the reach of the complainant/petitioner and she can prove her case by leading the evidence in the Court.
In context of the above, this Court finds that as per the Status Report, the inquiry was made in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur branch at Jwala Heri Market revealing that on the date of incident, the complainant had come to the branch with one boy and a lady where she operated the locker. The bank officials also inquired from her as to why she had withdrawn substantial amount upon which the complainant responded that amount is required to meet the necessity of persons accompanying her who are related to her.
The incident regarding 8.6.2015 was complained of on 14.8.2016 i.e. after about one year and two months. No medical check up was got conducted.
The above preliminary inquiry is clear to the effect that complaint does not disclose commission of cognizable offences.
Hence, the ld. Trial Court is correct in its observations as : 4 : made in the order impugned. More over, if need be, the complainant can move an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C or even for search and seizure of cash and jewellery. Further more, even the ld. Trial Court has noted that if required, it has power to order the investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, I find no impropriety, illegality or error of finding in the order impugned. It is not liable to be interfered with. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/its successor Court for intimation alongwith trial Court record.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court for further directions on 16.7.2018.
After necessary compliance, file of revision petition be consigned to record room Announced in the open Court (Manish Yaduvanshi) Dated: 03.07.2018 ASJ05(West)/THC Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADUVANSHI YADUVANSHI Date:
2018.07.05 16:49:55 +0530