Delhi District Court
Sh. Iqbal Umar Khan vs Smt. Ramwati Devi & Ors on 8 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Cri. Rev. No.87/18
Sh. Iqbal Umar Khan
..... Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Ramwati Devi & Ors.
.....Respondents
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of the point of maintainability as well as limitation raised by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1.
2. Before deciding the point of maintainability as well as limitation, this Court deems it appropriate to briefly discuss the facts of the present revision. The revisionist has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 01.02.2018 (hereinafter to be referred as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. MM02, East in the complaint case No.772/17 titled as Ramwati vs Brig. Rajender Singh & Ors u/s 200 Cr.P.C. PS Krishna Nagar. Along with complaint, an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed.
3. After seeking status report from PS Krishna Nagar, vide impugned order, Ld. Trial Court disposed of the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C directing the police official of PS Krishna Nagar to lodge FIR in the matter in proper section and investigate the matter as per law.
CR No.87/2018 Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors 14. As per complaint, the accused persons who are MCD officers have committed cheating, criminal breach of trust in collusion with each other after hatching criminal conspiracy. It is alleged that they committed the said offences on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and used the said forged documents as genuine knowingly and willfully just to cause harassment and wrongful loss to the complainant.
5. The revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the complainant has filed a false complaint against several officers of EDMC including Commissioner of MCD and she has arrayed as many as 15 officers without disclosing their specific roles with a view to drag all of them in a false case. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed by Ld. MM in a mechanical manner and without considering the record. The Ld. MM has overlooked the report filed by the police and there is no material available against the petitioner or its officers. The complainant has filed the complaint in order to pressurize and blackmail the officers of EDMC to avoid action against the unauthorized constructions in her property. It is stated that Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that the officers of the MCD are protected u/s 477 of MCD Act against any action taken in good faith. No forgery has been committed by any of the officers of EDMC and the matter regarding unauthorized construction in the property of complainant/respondent no.1 was taken up and she was also afforded opportunity to put up her case but none appeared on her behalf and CR No.87/2018 Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors 2 after considering the record, the order regarding seal of the property of the complainant was passed.
6. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 as well as Ld. Counsel for petitioner on the point of maintainability as well as limitation and gone through the records of the case.
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as same is barred by limitation.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for revisionists submits that the present revision petition has been filed within limitation.
9. As per article 131 of Limitation Act, a criminal revision petition can be filed within 90 days from the date of impugned order. It is clear from the perusal of the record that the order on the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was passed by Ld. MM on 01.02.2018 and the present revision petition has been filed on 26.04.2018. which is well within limitation of 90 days.
10.Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 also submitted that the petitioner has no right to file the present revision petition as no notice was issued to them by Ld. MM in pursuance to the complaint filed by respondent no.1. It is well settled law that the party aggrieved with the order can assailed the order of registration of FIR passed by Ld. MM u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this regard this court is supported with the case law reported CR No.87/2018 Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors 3 as "2017 (236) DLT 612 Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr".
11.Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 also submitted that present revision petition is not maintainable that their department EDMC has also filed a separate revision petition. This court does not find any merit in this case because each aggrieved party has a right to file a separate revision petition and their revision petition would not become non maintainable as their department has also challenged the same order.
12.On dated 21.05.2018, the submissions of both the parties were heard and matter was fixed for order on the point of maintainability, limitation and one another aspect regarding the objection of Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 qua appearance of Mr. Vijay Tyagi, Advocate, in the present case. It was submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that Mr. Vijay Tyagi is a panel lawyer of EDMC, therefore, he cannot represent the petitioner who are EDMC officers. It was also argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the Counsel for EDMC has filed a revision petition on behalf of the present petitioner. Thereafter, on 02.06.2018, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 filed an application regarding his objection against the appearance of Mr. Vijay Tyagi, Vardan Gupta and Arun Tyagi, Advocates and it was also stated that they have misused the Govt. money for the personal cases and therefore, an action be taken against them and certain officers of EDMC under PC Act. He also submitted that Mr. Vijay Tyagi cannot CR No.87/2018 Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors 4 appear on behalf of the petitioner and there are certain guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that he will file the same in a day or two and on 05.06.2018, he filed copies of rules and guidelines qua appointment of Delhi Govt. counsels. He submitted that he has taken these rules from the Website of Delhi Govt. and submitted that as per these guidelines, Mr. Vijay Tyagi cannot appear on behalf of the petitioner.
13.Ld. Counsel for petitioner filed reply to this application and submitted that the panel is given to contest the case on behalf of the department and they are only restrained from taking the cases against three Municipal Corporations and there is no provision in law which bars the penal advocate to take individual cases. It is submitted that except the petition of EDMC, all other revision petitions have been filed by the revisionists in their individual capacity. During the course of arguments, it was also submitted that Mr. Vijay Tyagi has been engaged in the present case as a private counsel and he would not get any remuneration from EDMC for this matter.
14.It is undisputed that the same counsel has filed the present petition, however, it will not become infructuous if the petitioner and department are represented by same counsel. Furthermore, it is no where stated in the revision petition that the department has engaged Mr. Vijay Tyagi, Advocate to file petition on behalf of the petitioner and it is clear from the vakalatnama that the petitioner has appointed Mr. Vijay Tyagi as his Advocate. It is also clear from the perusal of empanelment letter of CR No.87/2018 Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors 5 Mr. Vijay Tyagi, he has only been restrained from taking cases against three Municipal Corporation and no where debarred from pursuing him from private practice. There is nothing on record to show that Mr. Vijay Tyagi has been authorized by the EDMC to contest the present petition on behalf of the petitioner who is the EDMC officer. The rules cited by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 are the rules qua the Delhi Govt. Lawyers and therefore, same do not apply to the panel lawyers for EDMC. Furthermore, it is also clear from the submissions made by Mr. Vardan Gupta, Advocate on 05.06.2018 that Mr. Vijay Tyagi has been engaged as a private counsel in the present case, thus, it is also clear from this very submission that Mr. Vijay Tyagi has been engaged by the petitioner as a private counsel. Thus, the objection of respondent no.1 that the petitioner as well as other officers of EDMC have misused the govt. money to contest the present case on behalf of the petitioner, is unfounded and baseless.
15.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the present revision petition is maintainable. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY GUPTA Location: Delhi GUPTA Date: 2018.06.08 16:34:44 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) ASJ02/ Special Judge(NDPS) KKD/East/Delhi Announced in open Court on 08.06.2018 CR No.87/2018 Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors 6