Delhi District Court
Yaspal Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 22 April, 2015
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.B. SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.16/14.
PS-S.P. BADLI.
U/S. 397 Cr.P.C.
1. YASPAL SINGH
S/O. SHRI LAL SINGH
R/O. 45/B, SURAJ VIHAR,
OPP. NSIT, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI.
2. SAHIL
S/O. SH. YASPAL SINGH
R/O. 45/B, SURAJ VIHAR,
OPP. NSIT, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI.
3. RENU
W/O. SH. YASPMAL SINGH
R/O. 45/B, SURAJ VIHAR,
OPP. NSIT, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI. ......REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
1. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
2. SMT. SAMPA BOSS
W/O. SHRI DEBASIS BOSS,
R/O. H.NO.444, BAHARWALA MOHALLA,
VILLAGE BADLI,
DELHI. ........RESPONDENTS
ORDER
Vide this order, I propose to dispose of present revision petition filed U/s 397 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 25.06.2014.
CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 1 Pg 7 -:2:-
2. The brief facts for the disposal of this case are as under:-
The case of the prosecution is that husband of the complainant has worked with the accused persons/revisionists in their business from 01.02.2013, after some days some disputes had arisen between the accused persons/revisionists and husband of the complainant had finally on 21.05.2013 resigned from the business of the revisionists/accused persons. The husband of the complainant further states that the revisionists/accused persons compelled her husband to work with them otherwise he will face the consequences. When the husband of the complainant refused to work with them, the revisionists/accused persons threatened and harassed the husband of the complainant and on dated 22.05.2014 confined the complainant and her little son from 22.05.2014 to 26.05.2014. The revisionists/accused persons used to stay in the house of the complainant and during their stay they threatened the complainant and her son and the complainant alleged that revisionists/accused persons also extorted money from her.
3. The revisionists/accused persons received information from PS-S.P. Badli that the Hon'ble Court of Shri Virender Singh, Ld. MM, Rohini, Delhi has ordered on dated 25.06.2014 to register an FIR against them. The impugned order is unjust, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and law of the land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been filed on the following grounds:
(a) That the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities.
(b) That the impugned order is erroneous, improper and against the judicial principles.
(c) That the trial court has not appreciated that there is no legally CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 2 Pg 7 -:3:- admissible evidence against the revisionists/accused persons and any material of being converted into legally admissible evidence against the revisionists.
d) That ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of presumption without appreciating the evidence placed before it.
e) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the instant complaint is totally false and is an abuse of process of law.
f) That Ld. trial court grossly erred in coming to the finding that the revisionists/accused persons had committed prima facie any offence.
g) That the actual facts are that the husband of the complainant had started his job with the revisionists/accused persons in their business from 01.02.2013 and his job were to supply the dry fruits and collect the payments from the customers and deposit it in the account of the revisionists/accused persons's company.
h) That the husband of the complainant during his job started cheating the revisionists/accused persons. The husband of the complainant supplied the material in the market and collected full amount of the material and deposited the half amount of the said material in the company. When the revisionists/accused persons had enquired regarding the payments they become shocked to know that the husband of the complainant had collected full amount from the customers and deposited half amount in the company account.
k) That when the revisionists/accused persons enquired to the husband of the complainant and asked him for payment, he stated CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 3 Pg 7 -:4:- that he has no idea for the payment and thereafter he left the company and resigned from the company.
l) That revisionists/accused persons filed a complaint of cheating against the husband of the complainant to the police station Dwarka North and the police had enquired into the matter and registered a FIR No.286/14, U/s 408 IPC.
m) That the husband of the complainant plan a conspiracy with the help of his wife to pressurize the revisionists/accused persons to withdraw the cheating complaint filed against him and creating pressure for settlement and close the matter against him. Husband of the complainant also threatened the revisionists/accused persons that, he will drag the revisionists/accused persons in a false case and face dire consequences and finally they succeed in their motives.
(n) That ld. Trial Court asked for a report of the SHO for ATR and police filed the ATR report after inquiry on 31.03.2014, in this ATR report, police stated that no offence has been made out against the alleged persons.
o) That the present case is of vindictiveness on the part of the complainant/respondent no.2, who has misused the process of Court by filing the false and fabricated complaints and not disclosing the actual and true facts.
p) That ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence to establish, even prima facie case regarding the alleged offence against the revisionists / accused persons.
Hence, it is prayed that the order passed by ld. Trial Court dated 25.06.2014 may be set aside by allowing the present revision CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 4 Pg 7 -:5:- petition.
4. On the contrary, ld. Addl. PP for the State / Respondent No.1 and ld. counsel for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that the order of the ld. Trial Court dated 25.06.2014 do not call for any interference as no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order. Hence, it is prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
5. I have heard arguments on behalf of ld. Addl. PP for the State / Respondent No.1 and ld. counsel for the Respondent No.2 and perused the material on record including the ld. Trial Court Record very carefully. None has appeared on behalf of the Revisionists/accused persons to argue the revision petition despite opportunities.
6. After hearing the arguments and on the perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed, as ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 25.06.2014 has directed the SHO concerned to register the FIR and investigate the case, since as per the ld. Trial Court, prima facie as per the facts of the complainant revisionists/accused persons have committed cognizable offence. When a complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before the ld. Trial Court. The ld. Trial Court has power either to direct the concerned SHO to register the FIR and investigate the case or to take the cognizance of the offence himself and may fix the case for complainant evidence and pass appropriate order after hearing the arguments and seeing the entire CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 5 Pg 7 -:6:- material on record. In this case the ld. Trial court has opined that prima facie as per facts of the complaint the revisionists / accused persons had committed cognizable offence and SHO was directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter. The ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 26.04.2014 has not committed any illegality or impropriety. The registration of the FIR does not mean that some coercive action is bound to be taken by the police against the revisionists / accused persons, if the IO / SHO concerned after proper investigation are of the opinion that prima facie, no offence is made out against the revisionists / accused persons, the IO / SHO may file the cancellation report. The perusal of the ld. Trial Court record reveals that there is an action taken report (ATR) was filed by the SHO, PS- S.P. Badli, dated 31.03.2014, which reveals that a case U/s 408 IPC of the PS - Dwarka North had been registered against the Respondent No.2 Sampa Boss and her husband Shri Debashish Boss and Shri Debashish Boss had remained in the judicial custody for around 2½ months. Even the statement of the revisionist/accused Shri Yashpal Singh is also on record. Hence, the registration of FIR is not per se coercive. The registration of FIR means that the IO / SHO shall investigate the matter and file the challan accordingly.
7. Under the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed as while passing the impugned order dated 25.06.2014, the ld. Trial Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Copy of order alongwith Ld. Trial Court Record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and record.
CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 6 Pg 7 -:7:-
9. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( R. B. SINGH )
Dated: 22.04.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-02(North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi
CR NO.16/14/// YASHPAL SINGH & ORS VS STATE & ANR/// PS SPB// Pg 7 Pg 7