Delhi District Court
Bimla Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 1 February, 2025
CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024
Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura
DLNE010032182024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. : DLNE01-003218-2024
Criminal Revision No. : 187/2024
Under Section : 440 BNSS
Police Station : Bhajanpura
CT. Case No. : 1050/2023
In the matter of: -
Smt. Bimla Devi
W/o. Late Ram Awadh Maurya,
R/o. C-3, Gali No.7, Maujpur,
Delhi-110053.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through APP - Prosecution Branch,
North-East, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032.
2. Ms. Preeti Maurya
D/o. Sh. Ram Kumar Maurya,
R/o. 730-B, Traffic Colony,
Civil Line, Prayagraj, U.P.
Also at: -
13/33, Champapuri, Gangaghat,
Shuklaganj Unnao, U.P.-209861.
Digitally
Also at: - signed by
PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA
70, Cantt Jaipuria School, PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA Date:
2025.02.01
Kanpur Nagar, U.P. -208004. 16:18:18
+0530
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Page 1 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024
Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura
3. Smt. Munni Devi
W/o. Ram Kumar,
R/o. 16/14, Swadeshi House,
Civil Line, VTC, Kanpur, U.P. 208004.
Also at: -
13/33, Champapuri, Gangaghat,
Shuklaganj Unnao, U.P.-209861.
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.10.2024
Date of reserving order : 29.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 01.02.2025
Decision : Petition is rejected.
ORDER
1. Present revision petition is preferred against order dated 30.05.2024, passed by ld. MM-01, North-East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in complaint case titled as Bimla Devi v. Preeti Maurya & Ors., bearing CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura. Vide impugned order dated 30.05.2024, ld. MM-01 (N/E), dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as moved by the complainant Smt. Bimla Devi (petitioner herein).
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the respondents no.2 and 3 herein. In her complaint, complainant/petitioner herein alleged that she had registered FIR No. 459/2023, PS Jafrabad against respondents (Pulastya Pramachala) Page 2 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura no.2 & 3 and others namely Suraj, Ram Kumar. Earlier she was in the process of getting that case transferred to Crime Branch. In this regard on 04.10.2023, she alongwith her daughter went to the office of Commissioner of Police for meeting, but she could not meet him and she was told to come on 05.10.2023.
3. Complainant/petitioner herein further alleged that on 05.10.2023, when petitioner and her daughter reached the office of Commissioner of Police with request for changing/transferring of investigation agency, then she was advised to go to police station in this regard and accordingly, she went to police station Jafrabad. When complainant and her daughter reached a park near PS Jafrabad, suddenly respondents no.2 and 3 alongwith a man, stopped their way and they started giving threat of dire consequences to petitioner. Respondents also told petitioner to withdraw the afore-said case. Thereafter, petitioner herein with her daughter went to police station Jafrabad. Petitioner told police officers regarding the said incident. At the same time, respondents no.2 & 3 and one unknown associate started beating daughter of the complainant and threatened to withdraw the case. The officers rescued daughter of petitioner. Petitioner further alleged that in this incident respondents snatched one gold earring of her daughter in the PS and petitioner made call at 112 number. PCR officers came and told that her call had been transferred to PS Bhajanpura and they left. Due to ill health, complainant/petitioner along with her daughter returned back to her home and gave written complaint regarding the present (Pulastya Pramachala) Page 3 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura incident vide DD No. 76-A dated 06.10.2023 to SHO PS Bhajanpura and DCP North East, Delhi. However, neither police took action nor did register any FIR against the respondents.
4. On the application of the complainant, status report was called from the SHO, PS concerned. The status report was filed by DCP concerned and IO SI Ram Singh. As per their reports, no quarrel was found in CCTV footage of PS Jafrabad. It was also mentioned in the reports that complainant denied about having received any kind of injury and about any MLC to this effect. As per status report no cognizable offence was made out.
5. Ld. M.M dismissed the application making following observations: -
"7. In the present case, the complainant is aware about the name and address of the proposed accused person. From the material on record, the entire evidence is within the reach of the complainant and no investigation by the police is required at this stage. Needless to say that if required later on, the investigation may be directed u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C deserves to be dismissed and therefore, the same is dismissed. ..........."
GROUNDS
6. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 30.05.2024, petitioner herein filed present revision petition mainly on the following relevant grounds:-
6.1. That trial court did not consider the facts that there is need of custodial interrogation, because a male accused and his associates were involved in the incident and the gold ear-ring of the daughter of the complainant, is in possession of the accused persons.
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page 4 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura 6.2. That trial court passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without considering the evidence and documents available on the record.
6.3. That trial court did not appreciate the fact that complaint of complainant/petitioner clearly mentions that a PCR call was made by her at no.112 on 05.10.2023 to police at PS Jafrabad. 6.4. Reference was made to the case of: - (i) Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1; (ii) Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020), decided on 08.08.2023 by Hon'ble Supreme Court; (iii) Usha Chakraborty v. State of Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90; and (iv) Pandharinath Narayan Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom
882. ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS
7. In the written argument/submission filed by ld. counsel for petitioner Sh. Chander Shekhar, he reiterated the same grounds as already taken in the petition. In support of his contentions, ld. counsel for petitioner relied upon certain case laws apart from afore-said judgments, which are as under: -
7.1. Pooja Pal v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 135. 7.2. Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 714. 7.3. Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 292. 7.4. Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P & Anr. (2013) 6 SCC 384. 7.5. Kailash Gour & Ors. v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1068 of 2006, decided on 15.12.2011.
7.6. Harendra Sarkar v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 907 of 2006, decided on 02.05.2008.
7.7. Tulsiram v. State of M.P. & Ors. 192 SCC OnLine MP 199.
8. Per contra, Sh. Gaurav Singh, ld. Addl. PP for State argued that trial court has rightly passed the impugned order.
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page 5 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura
9. Ms. Sandhya Singh, ld. counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, started to give factual description of the case already registered in the past. She was asked to respond to the submissions based on law, as per issue involved in this revision. But she did not opt to make any such submission.
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS, LAW AND FACTS
10. The law under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been settled in various judgments. It is discretionary power of Magistrate, to appreciate if police investigation is actually required. Ld. MM has referred to such legal principles as explained by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi).
11. Even in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court while laying down certain guidelines to exercise power u/s 156(3) Cr.PC, made following observations: -
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.PC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verity the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible."
12. The above-mentioned observations of Supreme Court, make it very clear that before deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is well empowered to conduct some sort of enquiry into the allegations made by the applicant (Pulastya Pramachala) Page 6 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura and also to ascertain veracity of the allegations. For the purpose of deciding such application, ld. MM (N/E) herein called for action taken report from the police.
13. It has been held in the case of Caetano Colaco v. Joao Rodrigues, AIR 1966 Goa 32, that revisional interference may be justified where: -
"a) the decision is grossly erroneous;
b) there is no compliance with the provisions of law:
c) the findings of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence;
d) material evidence of the parties is not considered;
e) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."
14. In the case of Praban Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal & Anr. AIR 1959 SC 144, it was observed that: -
"S.399 r. with s.397 do not create any right in the litigant, but only conserves the power to see that justice is done and the subordinate courts do not exceed jurisdiction or abuse their powers. The court of revision is not bound to entertain an application in revision. It is a discretionary power, whose exercise must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."
15. In Rajaram Vs. State, 1983 CrLJ612 (MP) it was also held that: -
"Order of lower court ought not be lightly set aside unless it has entailed mis carriage of justice or where two views are possible merely because the revising court takes the other view."
16. In the present case, petitioner was allegedly in PS Jafrabad in order to make inquiry about development in FIR No.459/2023. She was allegedly threatened and assaulted before the police officials in PS Jafrabad and at the same time allegedly her daughter was also assaulted and her gold ear ring was snatched by accused Preeti, Munni Devi and one unknown person. Ld. (Pulastya Pramachala) Page 7 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura counsel for petitioner submitted that police investigation is required to find out particulars of the afore-said unknown person and for custodial interrogation of accused to recover the gold ear ring. However, trial court record shows that had called for action taken report on DD No.120-A and HC Anil Kumar from PS Bhajanpura had also given a report in respect of DD No.76-A dated 06.10.2023. As per both these reports, SI Ram Singh, who was IO of FIR No. 459/2023, PS Jafrabad was examined during this inquiry and SI Ram Singh denied having such incident taken place on the alleged date of incident in his police station. Though he mentioned that both these parties had come to the police station that day. As per the report, in CCTV footage also no such incident was found taking place. In the back drop of such inquiry report, ld. MM passed the impugned order.
17. The purpose of police investigation as argued by ld. counsel for petitioner, is negated by the afore-said report already given by the police official. In that situation, a call taken by ld. MM to ask the petitioner to lead her evidence in respect of allegations made by her, cannot be termed as unjustified or perverse. Ld. MM has already observed that in case of need, further inquiry u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. (as applicable at the relevant time) can be conducted.
18. Petitioner is otherwise having all facts within her knowledge and she is in position to lead evidence to explain the alleged incident in detail. Depending upon the facts being disclosed in her evidence, Magistrate has the power to conduct further enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (now 225 BNSS). In such (Pulastya Pramachala) Page 8 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003218-2024 Bimla Devi v. State & Ors.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2024, CT Case No. 1050/2023, PS Bhajanpura circumstances, it cannot be said that ld. Magistrate has committed any illegality while exercising his discretion, or the impugned order suffers from any perversity. It is well settled law that in revision jurisdiction, court is not supposed to substitute the decision of Magistrate with its own opinion. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
19. In view of my forgoing discussions, observations and findings, present revision petition is rejected.
File of revision petition be consigned to record room, as per rules. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date: 2025.02.01 16:18:31 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 01.02.2025 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 9 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi (Pulastya Pramachala) Page 9 of 9 ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi