Delhi District Court
Anand Prakash Gupta vs Pooja Kansal And Others on 11 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 103/15
Anand Prakash Gupta .........Petitioner
Vs.
Pooja Kansal and others ........Respondents
File received on assignment on : 10.12.2015
Arguments heard on : 11.12.2015
Order announced on : 11.12.2015
ORDER :
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 23.10.2015 passed by Ld. MM04 (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the petitioner for registration of FIR against the respondents was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that marriage of the petitioner's son namely Atul Kansal and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 29.02.2012. The conduct of the respondent no.1 was not good towards the petitioner and his wife. Respondent no. 1 extended threats to the petitioner and his wife Anand Prakash Gupta v. Pooja Kansal and others Page 1 Crl. Rev. 103/15 that she will commit suicide after giving statement against them. As a precautionary measure, the petitioner and his wife along with their son namely Atul Kansal shifted to a rented premises to save themselves from implication in a false case. On 18.7.2015 at about 12 a.m to 1 p.m respondent no.1 came to their house with Deepak Gupta, Sumit Gupta, Sarika Gupta, Raghav Gupta, Ram and several other persons and forcefully entered the house of the petitioner and put the respondent no. 1 in possession of the second floor of the said premises which is self acquired property of the petitioner. The kurta of petitioner was torn with the help of muscleman. Petitioner made a complaint in PS Keshav Puram against respondent no. 1 and others for lodging FIR. On these allegations, it is claimed that the FIR be registered under appropriate penal sections against the respondents.
3. I have heard Sh. P S Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the trial court record. Ld. Counsel has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:
(a) That the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences and, hence, the Ld. Trial Court should have ordered for registration of FIR as held in judgment Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P & others, 2014 (1) JCC 1.
(b) That the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the ATR filed by Anand Prakash Gupta v. Pooja Kansal and others Page 2 Crl. Rev. 103/15 the IO;
(c) That the impugned order was passed by the trial court in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts.
4. I have gone through the trial court record. On 18.8.2015 Action Taken Report was sought by the court from the police and the same was filed in the court on 03.09.2015.
5. It has been held in Lalita Kumari (supra) that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
6. It is stated in the ATR dated 26.9.2015 that on the complaint of Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta (petitioner herein), action u/s 323/506 IPC was made out and as per law, action was taken. The copy of FIR u/s 155 Cr.PC was also handed over to him. Further, there was no injury to anybody. It is further stated in the ATR that on the same day FIR No. 514/15 u/s 354/354A/354C/506/509/323/34 IPC dated 19.7.2015 was registered against the petitioner and others on the statement made by the respondent no.1.
7. The allegations in the complaint do not attract commission of any cognizable offence. The offences u/s 323 and 506 IPC are non cognizable and bailable.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is Anand Prakash Gupta v. Pooja Kansal and others Page 3 Crl. Rev. 103/15 no clear material on record to proceed against the respondents u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of the FIR. Thus, the direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not warranted in the present case.
9. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine though for the reasons different from that of the trial court. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 11.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBIIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Anand Prakash Gupta v. Pooja Kansal and others Page 4 Crl. Rev. 103/15