Delhi District Court
Sh. Pooran S/O Sh. Raja Ram vs (1)Nain Singh on 16 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
CR No.45/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0360442011
Sh. Pooran S/o Sh. Raja Ram
R/o 328, BlockA, New Sanjay Amar Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi and
also at 735, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Nain Singh
(2)Niranjan Singh
Both sons of Sh. Girwar Singh,
(3) Mamta Raghav W/o Sh. Nain Singh
R/o 62, Ground floor, Saini Enclave,
Delhi92.
(4) Kallu Ram
(5) Lokesh S/o Sh. Kallu Ram
R/o 258, Karkardooma Village,
Delhi92.
(6) The State of NCT, Delhi. ...Respondents
CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 1 of 8
Date of Institution : 28.11.2011
Date of order reserved : 08.12.2011
Date of order : 16.12.2011
O R D E R
By this order, I propose to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397/399 of Cr.PC against the order dated 28.09.2011, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts whereby the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2 Trial Court record has been called. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material available on record.
3 Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner herein filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. before Ld. M.M. Against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under section 324/452/506/34 IPC and under section 3(i)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 6.4.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., accused Nain Singh, Mamta Raghav and Niranjan abused the complainant with caste related words and threatened him due to which he filed a complaint with the police. On the same day, accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant, having CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 2 of 8 knife, danda and sticks. They abused the complainant with caste related words. Accused Kallu Ram and Lokesh caught hold of complainant whereas accused Niranjan gave knife blows to him due to which he received multiple injuries on his hand. Accused Mamta and Nain Singh attacked on his head due to which he received unseen blunt injuries. Police was informed and his MLC was conducted, but no case was registered against the accused persons. Petitioner also filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by Ld. M.M. 4 The petitioner moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Ld. Trial Court for issuance of directions to the police to register FIR. Ld. M.M. dismissed the said application and called the complainant to adduce presummoning evidence. Feeling aggrieved with passing of impugned order, petitioner has preferred the present revision petition on the grounds that the Ld. MM was ought to direct the investigation by police when complainant disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. Further ground taken is that the Ld. MM erred in observing that dispute between the parties was civil in nature. Ld. M.M. has not taken into consideration the humiliation caused to the complainant by accused persons by CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 3 of 8 uttering caste related words.
5 It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that when allegations made by the petitioner disclosed commission of cognizable offences, police was duty bound to register FIR. He has further argued that inquiry in the present case has been done by a SubInspector whereas as per provisions of S.C/S.T.Act, inquiry or investigation is to be carried out not below the rank of ACP. He has further argued that Ld. M.M. erred in relying upon the report of Sub Inspector who was incompetent to make inquiry. He has further argued that when police did not take action and the petitioner filed the complaint, Ld. M.M. was having no option other than directing the police to register FIR.
6 To press his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment in case of Cogent Silver Fibres PTE Ltd. vs. State 2007(2) JCC 1363 wherein it was held that when an offence has been disclosed, the Magistrate ought to issue directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. It was also observed that offences under S.C./S.T.Act are serious offence and Police Officer below the rank of ACP, is not empowered to investigate the matter. 7 However, this authority does not render any help to CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 4 of 8 the petitioner inasmuch as question involved in the present case is with regard to issuance of directions by the Ld. Court to the police or taking of cognizance by the Court itself on the complaint of the petitioner. As per Section 190 of Cr.PC, when a complaint is received, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate can adopt two methods. Firstly, the Magistrate may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, without taking cognizance, to investigate and file a report. Secondly, the Magistrate may take the cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint and conduct proceedings under Section 202 of Cr.PC. In this case, Ld. M.M. exercised his discretion and instead of adopting former procedure, preferred to take cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to adduce pre summoning evidence.
8 In a case titled P. Kannappan versus State of Kerala (Reported in 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 165), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed that the Magistrate can adopt two options when a complaint is filed before him. He may direct the police to investigate and file the report. He may take cognizance and proceed CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 5 of 8 under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It is further observed that the complainant has no right to make a demand to refer the case to the police.
9 Similar views have been expressed by their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 1877 in which it was held that the power to direct an investigation to the police is available to the Magistrate both under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and under section 202 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct an investigation by the police is at the precognizance stage while the power to direct similar investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. is at the post cognizance stage. The Magistrate has treated the petition filed by the appellant as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceeded under section 202 Cr.P.C. and kept the matter with himself for an inquiry in the facts of the case. Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is nothing irregular in the manner in which the Ld. Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of 202(2) Cr.P.C., if deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. or proceed in terms of section 193 Cr.P.C. 10 In the present case Ld. M.M.called report from the CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 6 of 8 police and it was reported that no such quarrel as alleged in the complaint had taken place. Even no other accused accept accused Mamta was found at the spot as per call details of accused persons. Ld. M.M. rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. In the said application, the petitioner made prayer for issuance of direction to the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In my view, a complainant has no right or privilege to demand from the Magistrate to refer the case to the police. It is the discretion of the Magistrate, either he can forward the complaint to the police for investigation or he himself can take cognizance and proceed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 11 In view of laid down in case of Rameshbai Pandurao Hedau (supra), impugned order can not be said to be inconsistent with the law. Ld. M.M. can not be said to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. Impugned order passed by Ld. M.M. does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Consequently, impugned order is hereby upheld. Resultantly, present revision is dismissed. However, observations made above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall not cause prejudice to CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 7 of 8 rights of any of the parties.
12 A copy of the order be sent to Trial Court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 16.12.2011 District Judge &
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/c (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 8 of 8