Delhi District Court
Mohd. Amjad vs Sharad Sagar Singh 1/4 on 18 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST, SAKET, NEW DELHI
Mohd. Amjad ........... Complainant
Vs.
Sharad Sagar Singh & Ors. ............ Accused/respondents
PS Jamia Nagar CC No.54/10/10 ORDER ON APPLICATION 156(3) CrPC By this order, the court shall decide the complainant's application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that the complainant was married with Ms. Sarah Amjad (maiden name Sonia Dhir), respondent no.5 according to Muslim rites and customs, after she converted herself to Islam. Respondent no.1 is stated to be a family friend of complainant's wife and respondent no. 1 - 4 are other family members of his wife. They were against the marriage of complainant and respondent no. 5 because of the inter-religion marriage. After marriage, the complainant with respondent no.5 was leading a happy married life for 2 years. However, the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 4 hatched a criminal conspiracy to spoil the married life of the complainant and started harassing the complainant. It is alleged that they cheated and defrauded the complainant with an amount of Rs.20 Lacs which the complainant was induced to give to respondent no. 5 (wife) and she handed over the amount to the other respondents. It is stated that criminal complaints to Mohd. Amjad vs Sharad Sagar Singh 1/4 this effect are also pending in the MM Courts. It is stated that with a view to take out his wife from the net of respondent no. 1 to 4, complainant filed a criminal writ peition no. 1404/2008 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the respondent no. 5 gave a statement before the court that she did not want to live with the complainant and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.02.2009. It is alleged that respondent no.1 in criminal conspiracy with respondent no.2 to 4 intended to outrage religious feelings of complainant and the entire muslim community and promote enmity between two groups by sending indecent SMS's from mobile no. 9716876073 of respondent to the mobile no. 9654087114 of respondent no.5, and then respondent no.5 forwarded the same to mobile number 9210300301 of the complainant. The said messages are annexed with the complaint and are stated to be too indecent to be reedaloud.
It is alleged that SMSs have hurt the religious feelings of the complainant and he made complaint to the police authorities and other competent authorities. It is further alleged that on 31.03.2010, respondent no.1 made a telephonic call on complainant's mobile phone and gave abuses to him and to Islam religion and Prophet Mohammed. The police has failed to take any action. Hence the present complaint.
Complainant has prayed that an FIR under Section 153A IPC /295A IPC read with section 120-B IPC be filed.
Mohd. Amjad vs Sharad Sagar Singh 2/4
Heard. Perused. On 21.11.2011 the present application was
dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor. However the complainant preferred a
revision against the same and the accused was remanded back for fresh consideration in accordance with law by Ld. ASJ Sh. V. K. Khanna by order dated 07.05.2012.
Section 295 A IPC prescribes punishment for any deliberate and malicious acts intending to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise.
On perusal of the complaint and the documents annexed herewith, the court is of the view that SMSs sent by the respondent to the complainant are highly abnoxious and indecent, and are deliberately sent to him with an intention to insult his religion. Moreover, since the messages have been sent by mobile phone, hence Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is also attracted.
As far as Section 196 Cr.P.C is concerned, in the case title 'State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs Pastor P Raju 2006 (3) SCC Crime 179', it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "there is no bar against registration of criminal case or investigation by the police. A plain reading of this provision will show that no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153- B or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of Indian Penal Code or a criminal Mohd. Amjad vs Sharad Sagar Singh 3/4 conspiracy to commit such offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate. The opening words of the Section are "No court shall take cognizance" and consequently the bar created by the provision is against taking of cognizance by the court. There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. If a criminal case is registered, investigation of the offence is done and the police submits a report as a result of such investigation before a Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate, there will no violation of Section 196 (1-A) Cr.P.C and no illegality of any kind would be committed".
Thus, in view of the above said case law, the court is of the view that the sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C is not required at this stage.
In view of the above discussion, application is allowed. SHO PS Jamia Nagar is directed to register the FIR under the relevant provisions of law and file report accordingly. Put up for further proceedings on 13.05.2013.
Announced in the open court (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) on 18.03.2013 MM-07, SE, SAKET, DELHI Mohd. Amjad vs Sharad Sagar Singh 4/4