Delhi District Court
Revisionist vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 12 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.204522/16
ID : DLSE010019432016
Angad Raj Sharma
S/o Late Jaidev Prasad Sharma
R/o A87, Saurabh Vihar,
Badarpur, New Delhi
. . . . Revisionist
Through: Shri M.S. Sisodia,
Advocate
versus
1. State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent No.1
Through: Sh. M. Zafar Khan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
2. HC Mahesh Chand Sharma
PS Jaitpur, New Delhi
S/o Shri Harish Chand Sharma
3. Manoj
S/o Shri Harish Chand Sharma
4. Ajay
S/o Shri Harish Chand Sharma
All r/o I135/I146,
Hari Nagar Extension,
Jaitpur Road, Badarpur,
New Delhi - 110044 . . . . . Respondent No.2 to 4
Through: Shri Shahid Ali,
Advocate
CR No.204522/16 1 of 7
__________________________________________________________ Date of Institution : 09.02.2016 Date when arguments were heard : 22.07.2016 Date of Judgment : 12.08.2016 JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 02.01.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short "MM")03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi on an application moved by revisionist under section 156 (3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") in CC No.1096/1/15 PS Jaitpur titled as Angad Raj Vs. HC Mukesh Chand Sharma & Ors.
2. Revisionist filed complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 to 4 for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under section 323/341/356/506/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and other provisions of penal law, to summon, try and punish them in accordance with law. Alongwith the complaint, he also filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for giving directions to SHO Police Station Jaitpur to register the FIR against the respondents.
3. On the complaint of revisionist, learned MM was pleased to call Action Taken Report from ACP Sarita Vihar. Report was submitted in the court.
4. After hearing submissions of learned counsel for revisionist and on perusal of material on record, learned MM was pleased to dismiss the application of revisionist under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.vide order dated 02.01.16. Revisionist was given liberty to lead presummoning CR No.204522/16 2 of 7 evidence to prove his allegations as made in his complaint.
5. Feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 02.01.2016 passed by learned MM, revisionist has filed the present petition.
6. On notice, respondent no.1 appeared through Additional Public Prosecutor to contest the petition. Respondent No.2 to 4 also appeared alongwith their counsel to contest the petition. No formal reply to the petition of revisionist was filed on behalf of respondents.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Sh. M.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for revisionist, Sh. M. Zafar Khan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Shri Shahid Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 4 and carefully perused the record of the case.
8. Revisionist filed the complaint against respondent No.2 to 4 with the allegation that he alongwith respondent No.2 HC Mahesh Chand Sharma had purchased House No.I135/146, Hari Nagar Extension, Jaitpur on 16.01.10 from Smt. Rajni Bhasin for a sale consideration of Rs.14,85,000/ for the purpose of investment. He stated that after 34 months of the purchase of the house, HC Mahesh Chand Sharma started residing in the said house. He alleged that on 23.06.15, he came to know that respondent No.2 HC Mahesh Chand Sharma without his prior permission and knowledge, after demolishing the said house, started carrying out unauthorized construction. On 24.06.15 and 25.06.15, he made call at 100 number but construction activities did not stop. He stated that he went alongwith some persons to Police Station Sarita Vihar to lodge complaint and he was assured by ACP Sarita Vihar that legal action CR No.204522/16 3 of 7 would be taken.
9. Revisionist further alleged that on 02.07.15, in the evening at about 5 - 5:30 PM, it came to his notice that construction was going on in the property in question. He alongwith a lady neighbour and an employee reached at the spot and started to take pictures of the construction being made with his mobile phone. Meanwhile, HC Mahesh Chand and his brothers namely Manoj and Ajay came there and HC Mahesh Chand snatched his mobile phone and they also gave beatings to him. HC Mahesh Chand asked his wife to make complaint to the police saying that she was molested by revisionist. ACP Sarita Vihar also reached at the spot. On 03.07.15, revisionist made complaint to SHO Police Station Jaitpur, but instead of taking any action on his complaint, SI Yad Ram called him to the police station on the pretext of enquiring into his complaint and arrested him in a false case bearing FIR No.516/15 u/s 354/506/34 IPC PS Jaitpur. He further alleged that subsequently, in the month of July, 2015, he came to know that electricity meter of the said premises was also got transferred in the name of Manoj Sharma, brother of HC Mahesh Chand and when he came to Police Station to lodge a complaint in this regard on 24.07.15, the police officials refused to receive his complaint. He alleged that the connection has been got transferred in third party's name without his consent. He suspected that same was got done by furnishing forged documents to the electricity department in order to grab his property. Revisionist lodged complaint with the SHO, DCP and Commissioner of Police, but no action was taken. Therefore, he approached the court of learned MM for taking action CR No.204522/16 4 of 7 against the respondents.
10. In the Action Taken Report submitted by the police to the court of learned MM, it was mentioned that on receipt of call regarding quarrel, enquiry was conducted from neighbours. However, it was found that no incident of snatching of mobile phone or camera took place. On the complaint of Mamta Rani, FIR No.516/15 u/s 354/506/34 IPC was registered against the revisionist. The police further reported that so far as illegal construction in the property in question by HC Mahesh Chand Sharma was concerned, intimation was sent to concerned department vide DD No.43A dated 25.06.15 Police Station Jaitpur. It was further reported that matter was regarding property dispute between the parties.
11. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by learned MM is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "The complainant has placed on record copy of ownership documents with copy of complaints and copy of documents on the basis of which electricity connection was taken by Manoj for the ground floor of the property.
Perusal of record shows that all the facts are within the knowledge of the complainant. Nothing is required to be recovered or investigated by the police. In these circumstances, application of the applicant u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Complainant is at liberty to prove his allegations by leading pre summoning evidence."
CR No.204522/16 5 of 7
12. The revisionist in his complaint besides levelling allegations of giving beatings to him has also levelled allegations against respondent No.2 to 4 for cheating, forgery of documents and also for snatching of his mobile phone. The police assistance/investigation in the case is required for the following reasons:
1. The mobile phone, from which revisionist was taking photographs of the construction of the property in question, which has allegedly been snatched by HC Mahesh Chand is to be recovered. The mobile phone of revisionist is to be traced by the police through its IMEI Number and from the CDR details of the mobile phone, it is to be ascertained as to in whose possession it is.
2. The person, who presented the documents in the electricity department for transfer of electricity meter in the name of Manoj is to be identified. How the said documents were prepared is to be ascertained. The source of forgery of documents, if any is also to be found out.
3. The original documents, photocopy of which were submitted in the electricity department and on the basis of which, the electric meter was installed in the premises in question are to be recovered.
4. The persons, who allegedly forged the documents of the property in question are to be ascertained and interrogated. The aforesaid acts cannot be done by the revisionist on his own. Investigation of the police is required to ascertain the truth of the matter. The revisionist has levelled serious allegations against the respondents in his complaint which are required to be investigated by the police.
CR No.204522/16 6 of 7
13. For the reasons discussed above, the petition in hand moved by revisionist is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 02.01.16 is set aside. SHO PS Jaitpur is directed to register the FIR under relevant provisions of law on the complaint of revisionist and investigate the matter. Copy of order be sent to SHO PS Jaitpur for information and necessary action.
14. A true copy of the 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. 12.08.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.204522/16 7 of 7