Delhi District Court
Sh. Sandip Pal Kumar vs Ms. Anamika Singh on 5 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA :
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No.113/2020
SH. SANDIP PAL KUMAR
S/o Sh. S.S. Pal
R/o C-24, GF Panchsheel Vihar,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017.
......Revisionist
Versus
1. MS. ANAMIKA SINGH
D/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Gonda, Dutt Nagar Bisen,
Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.
2. SH. SARDAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Magan Bihar Singh
R/o Gonda, Dutt Nagar Bisen,
Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.
......Respondent
Date of filing of Revision : 04.03.2020
Date of Decision : 05. 10.2020
ORDER
A Criminal Revision under Section 397/398/399 Cr.P.C has been filed against the Order dated 22.01.2020 vide which the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been dismissed for non-prosecution.
2 The facts in brief are that the complainant had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for taking cognizance of the offences under Sandip Pal Kumar Vs. Anamika Singh page 1 of 4 Section 383/306/309/329/506/34 IPC read with Section 66E. 67, 67A of IT Act. It was accompanied with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for directions to the SHO for registration of FIR. The matter was listed for 19.12.2019 and was adjourned for December, 2020. However, the matter was taken up in January 2020 and was eventually dismissed for non- prosecution on 22.01.2020. The grounds for challenging the said order is that no hearing was given to the Revisionist after 26.11.2019. Ld. M.M has failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations against the respondents who had tried to extort money by threatening to implicate him in a false rape case or abetment of committing suicide. A request is made that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded back for rehearing by the Ld. M.M. 3 I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. My observations are as under :
4 The first aspect for consideration is whether notice is required to be given to respondents of the present Revision.
5 In Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co. (Bombay) Limited & Ors. vs State & Ors. 2012 (4) JCC 2310, it was observed that an order dismissing the complaint for nonprosecution or in default, which is made the subject matter of the revision, cannot be equated with "revision petitions" that are filed on substantive grounds or touch on the merits. Courts have recognized difference between orders which are procedural and Sandip Pal Kumar Vs. Anamika Singh page 2 of 4 substantive orders as stated in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. 1980 (Supp) SCC 420. It was held that an order dismissing the complaint in default or nonprosecution did not touch upon factual or legal merits of the complaint. It is a reflection on or about the conduct of the complainant in proceedings before the Court and the opinion formed by Court about said conduct. Such orders if they did not reflect and take into consideration merits of the case or complaint, would not require notice to the opposite side when examined in a revision petition. Such orders are not prejudicial to other side as they did not reflect and take into consideration merits and demerits of the allegations. When a revision petition is filed against an order dismissing a complaint for nonprosecution or in default and same is allowed, it is not an order that causes prejudice to opposite side, as there was no application of mind or reflection on merits whatsoever. This distinction has to be thus, kept in mind. 6 The main grievance of the Revisionist is that this case has been earnestly dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.01.2020 without giving him any notice or an opportunity to adduce evidence. The perusal of the record shows that the matter was adjourned on 09.12.2019 to 21.12.2020. The matter was taken up on 21.12.2019 on which date the complainant did not appear. On the subsequent date i.e 10.01.2020 again none appeared on behalf of the complainant and on 22.01.2020 the case was dismissed for Sandip Pal Kumar Vs. Anamika Singh page 3 of 4 non-prosecution as none appeared. It is quite evident that the date 21.12.2020 was apparently mis-typed instead of 21.12.2019 and consequently the matter was taken up on 21.12.2019 and on subsequent dates. As per the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the case is shown as pending for 21.12.2020 even now. It is quite evident that there was a typographical error in mentioning the date as 21.12.2020 instead of 21.12.2019. However, the Revisionist cannot be penalized for the mistake.
7 In the circumstances the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 is set aside and the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is restored. The case be remanded back to the Ld. M.M to be tried as per law. The Revisionist is directed to appear before the concerned Court on 12.10.2020.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
NEENA Digitally signed by
NEENA BANSAL
BANSAL KRISHNA
Date: 2020.10.05
KRISHNA 16:29:29 +0530
ANNOUNCED in the open Court (Neena Bansal Krishna)
today on 5th day of October, 2020 District & Sessions Judge
South East, Saket Courts
New Delhi.
Sandip Pal Kumar Vs. Anamika Singh page 4 of 4