Delhi District Court
Smt. Babita @ Kavita vs Manoj Kumar on 17 May, 2014
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 175/2013
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0389152013
In the matter of :-
Smt. Babita @ Kavita . . . Revisionist
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
D/o Sh. H.N. Singh
R/o House No. 278, Second Floor
Masjid Moth, New Delhi
VERSUS
1. Manoj Kumar . . . Respondents
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Diwadi
R/o E-43, Gali No. 2 & 3, Pandav Nagar
Delhi - 110 092
2. Ram Prasad Diwadi
S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh
3. Smt. Laxmi Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Prasad Diwadi
Both R/o 278, Second Floor
Masjid Moth, Near South Ext, Part-II
New Delhi
4. Ved Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh
5. Smt. Hira Devi
W/o Sh. Ved Prakash
Both R/o R-43, Gali No. 2 & 3
Pandav Nagar, Delhi - 92
6. State (Govt of NCT, Delhi)
Crl. Rev. No. 175/2013 Page 1 of 5
-2-
Date of Institution : 02/12/2013
Date of reserving order : 15/05/2014
Date of pronouncement : 17/05/2014
ORDER
This order shall dispose of a Criminal Revision Petition U/s 397 r/w Sec. 401 Cr.P.C preferred by the revisionist Babita @ Kavita for setting aside the order dated 01/11/2013 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 100/2012, PS M.S. Park and also for direction of further investigation in respect to the sections 420/468/471/ 477/474/506/34 IPC.
2. The revision has been contested by the respondents No. 1 to 5 by filing reply.
3. Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
4. I have heard the submissions on behalf of parties and gone through the record.
5. On behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that on complaint of the revisionist U/s 156(3) Cr.PC pursuant to directions of Ld. MM, an FIR was registered only U/s 498A/406/34 IPC r/w Sec. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at PS M.S. Park against the accused persons without taking cognizance of rest of Crl. Rev. No. 175/2013 Page 2 of 5 -3- the allegations on which offence U/s 420/468/471/477/474/506/34 IPC were also made out and no reasons for not adding these sections was mentioned in the FIR. An application for cancellation of bail was moved and IO appeared and undertook to add section 420/506 IPC. DCP, District N/E also informed the complainant that Sec. 420/468/471/477/506/34 IPC have been added in FIR No. 100/2012, PS M.S. Park. The report U/s 173 Cr.PC was filed in the court but there was no whisper of investigation and findings U/s 420/468/471/477/506/34 IPC and therefore complainant moved an application U/s 173(8) Cr.PC. The matter was listed before Ld. Trial court for appearance and explanation by the IO on 01/11/13 but on that day Bar had called strike and Advocates were abstaining from appearance before the court. Father of the complainant had apprised the court that his counsel was not available and copy of reply of the Investigating Officer has also not been supplied to the complainant. However, Ld. Trial court without affording any opportunity to the counsel of the complainant to address the arguments disposed of the application arbitrarily and illegally causing serious prejudice to the complainant and therefore it is submitted that impugned order be set aside.
6. Ld. Add. Public Prosecutor for State has also supported the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
7. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that a perusal of the impugned order shows that Ld. Trial court had heard the submissions on the protest petition and passed the order in the Crl. Rev. No. 175/2013 Page 3 of 5 -4- presence of father of the complainant even though no one on behalf of the respondent was present. Moreover, it was only an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable against the impugned order. Reliance has been placed on authorities reported as Princy Christy v State, Crl. R.C (MD) No. 1 of 2008 dated 10/09/2009 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) and State and Others v N.M.T. Joy Immaculate 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1722.
8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application U/s 173(8) Cr.PC filed by the complainant has been dismissed by Ld. Trial Court causing serious prejudice to the complainant (revisionist herein). The said order cannot be said to be interlocutory as right of the revisionist has been finally adjudicated to prosecute the said application. Therefore, with due respect to the authorities relied by the Ld. Counsel for respondents, the same are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. A perusal of the impugned order also shows that only Ld. Substitute APP was present before the Ld. Trial court when the impugned order was passed. Neither Ld. Counsel for the complainant nor anyone on behalf of the accused persons was present and therefore it cannot be said that any effective hearing was given to the complainant (revisionist herein) or her Counsel. Admittedly, the Bar was abstaining from appearance in the court on account of strike and therefore disposal of the application U/s 173(8) Cr.P.C without giving effective hearing to the complainant's Counsel was not justified. In my considered view, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is Crl. Rev. No. 175/2013 Page 4 of 5 -5- accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to Ld. Trial Court to hear the submissions from Ld. Counsel for the complainant (revisionist herein) as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent and to pass an appropriate order on the application U/s 173(8) Cr.PC as per law. Parties shall appear before Ld. Trial court on 20/05/14. The revision is disposed of accordingly. Copy of order alongwith trial court record be sent to the Ld. Trial court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 17th May 2014 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdara District Karkardooma Court, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 175/2013 Page 5 of 5