Delhi District Court
Mohammad Amjad vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 7 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.51/16
ID No. 02406R0088642016
Mohammad Amjad
S/o Late Shri Mohammad Shamim
R/o H.No.161/13, Jogabai,
New Delhi 110025
. . . . Revisionist
Through: Shri Islam Khan,
Advocate
versus
State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent
Through: Sh. M. Zafar Khan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 04.03.2016
Date when arguments were heard : 05.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 07.06.2016
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397/399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") is to the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short "MM")10, SouthEast CR No.51/16 1 of 6 District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case FIR No.224/13 titled as State Vs. Sara Amjad @ Sonia Dheer & Others, Police Station Jamia Nagar.
2. Revisionist filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before learned MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi against Sharad Sagar Singh & Others for sending offensive, indecent SMS and hurting his sentiments and entire Muslim community. On 18.03.13, learned MM directed SHO of Police Station Jamia Nagar to register the FIR and investigate the matter. Pursuant to the directions passed by learned MM, case FIR No.224/13 under section 295A/153A/120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar against five persons namely Sharad Sagar Singh, Sarah Amjad @ Sonia Dheer, Tinu Sehgal, Ashok Dheer and Kamla Seghal.
3. The police carried out the investigation. On conclusion of investigation, police filed closure report in the case. Complainant/ revisionist filed protest petition to the report of investigating officer. Vide order dated 12.02.16, learned MM accepted the cancellation/closure report filed by the police. She refused to take cognizance of the offence.
4. Revisionist, feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated CR No.51/16 2 of 6 12.02.16 passed by learned MM, has preferred the present petition.
5. On notice, respondent appeared through Additional Public Prosecutor to contest the petition. No formal reply to the petition of revisionist has been filed by the respondent.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Islam Khan, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional PP for State and carefully perused record of the case.
7. Revisionist contended that in the year 2010, accused Sharad Sagar Singh sent offensive, indecent and dirty SMS from mobile number 9716876073 (belonging to his father Narinder Singh), 9999027037 and 9555821107 (in his own name) and 9654087114 (in the name of his wife Sarah Amjad @ Sonia Dhir) on different dates which she forwarded to him on mobile number 9210300301. He alleged that the SMS sent by accused persons on different dates are very abusive, offensive and indecent and they made deliberate and intentional attempt to hurt his religious sentiments and of entire Muslim community. He submitted that learned MM passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the gravity of the offence. He contended that learned trial court CR No.51/16 3 of 6 ought to have not accepted the closure report filed by police and directed the police for further investigation. He submitted that acceptance of closure report filed by police has given clean chit to the accused persons, who have committed such a serious offence and same may embolden them to sent such offensive SMSs to him or to any other person in future. He further contended that police failed to obtain sanction under section 196 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused persons for offence under section 295A/153A/120B IPC.
8. The report filed by police shows that the investigating officer collected call details and CAF IDs of the mobile numbers furnished by revisionist. The call details were examined which revealed that SMSs were passed between different mobile numbers on the date and time as mentioned in the charge sheet. The mobile phone of revisionist was taken into police possession vide seizure memo dated 27.06.14 and the same was sent to FSL, Rohini, New Delhi for examination for retrieval of SMSs but the same was not accepted by the agency due to lack of examination facilities. His mobile was also sent to CFSL, Hyderabad vide RC No.6/21/15, but the same was not accepted due to lack of equipment and examination facilities. Thus, SMSs could not be retrieved from the mobile phone of revisionist.
CR No.51/16 4 of 6
9. The alleged SMSs sent by accused persons to revisionist could not be retrieved from expert agencies. The investigating officer failed to find out any evidence to establish that the feelings of revisionist were outraged due to those SMSs. He also failed to collect any evidence to establish that feelings of public at large were outraged. The contents of SMSs could not be retrieved/collected from any agency. Thus, no material was found to take cognizance of offence punishable under section 295A/153A/120B IPC and section 66A of The IT Act.
10. The prosecuting agency did not move any application for seeking sanction from the competent authority under section 196 Cr.P.C. as no incriminating material was found against the accused persons. No admissible evidence could be collected on record to charge sheet the accused persons.
11. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, learned MM rightly refused to take cognizance of the offence. Order for further investigation in the case would not have served any purpose as the contents of alleged SMSs could not be retrieved despite best efforts from expert agencies. As there was no admissible evidence on record against the accused persons, therefore, learned MM has rightly accepted the closure / cancellation report filed by the police.
CR No.51/16 5 of 6
12. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned MM. Revision petition preferred by revisionist deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
13. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 07.06.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.51/16 6 of 6