Delhi District Court
Saroj W/O Late Sh. Sushil Kumar vs State on 27 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE02, CENTRAL, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. : 137/2013
CC No. : 09/1
P.S. : Subzi Mandi
U/s : 156(3) Cr.P.C.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Saroj W/o Late Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o 6 A, Block - C, DDA Flats
West Gorakhpur Extension, New Delhi
................Petitioner
Vs.
1. State
2. Smt. Nidhi Kashyap
W/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar
D/o Sh. Mahi Chand Kashyap
R/o 2233/170, Ganesh Pura B, Tri Nagar, Delhi
3. Sh. Neeraj Kashyap
S/o Sh. Mahi Chand Kashyap
R/o 2233/170, Ganesh Pura B, Tri Nagar, Delhi
4. Sh. Babu Ram S/o Not Known
R/o House no. 36, 3rd Floor
Chopra Building, Bharat Nagar,
Near Ashok Vihar, Delhi - 52
Crl. Rev. No.: 137/2013 1/5
5. Sh. Hansraj S/o Not Known
R/o E 30, Gali no. 1
East Vinod Nagar, New Delhi - 91
6. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ct. P.S. Subzi Mandi
.............Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.07.2013
Date of Arguments : 23.07.2013
Date of Order : 27.07.2013
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner aggrieved by the order of Ld. Trial court 22.5.2013 whereby the application of petitioner/complainant u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. A complaint was filed before Ld. Trial court by the complainant on the allegations that son of complainant was married to accused no. 1 who left her matrimonial home due to marital discord and thereafter on 6.5.2012, accused no. 1 alongwith her brothers and other persons came to the house of complainant, beaten her and also threatened to kill her and her family. Again on 7.1.22012 the same incident was repeated and accused no. 1 alongwith her family members also tried to take her grand son aged about two years. Ld. Trial court called for the report and in terms of the report, though there was a call regarding quarrel at PP Tis Hazari vide DD no. 15 but on inquiry no quarrel found to have Crl. Rev. No.: 137/2013 2/5 occurred at the spot and nobody was in injured condition. A call was also received with respect to the incident dated 7.12.2012 which was found to be call having been made by accused no. 1 and the complainant and during inquiry it was revealed that accused no. 1 had come to her matrimonial home to take back her two years son from her husband but she was not allowed to do so which was followed by the arguments between the parties. The complainant got herself examined and simple blunt injury was opined, in terms of the medical report. However application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by Ld. Trial court with observation that identification of the accused, mode and manner in which the evidence had been committed could be established by the complainant by leading evidence since there was nothing on record which warranted directions for registration of FIR.
3. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that once it was brought to the notice of the court that the cognizable offence had been committed, the FIR should have been directed to be registered since even otherwise police officers are duty bound to register the case on receiving information of cognizable offence. It was submitted that the police authorities have utterly failed to follow their statutory duty for lodging the FIR as was held by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.C. Nautiyal & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2002 II AD (Cr) DHC 177, 2001 Crl. L.J. 954 (SC) , 2001 Crl. L.J. 2587 (SC), 1999(1) JCC (SC) 107, 2006 (1) SCALE 1, Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Crl. Rev. No.: 137/2013 3/5 reported as 2006 (2) 457 and AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3376. It was also submitted that the petitioner had already exhausted all the legal remedies available to her and therefore had filed the complaint before Ld. Trial court who was bound to take cognizance on the said complaint and to pass order u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
4. As is apparent from the record that the terms between the parties were not cordial due to matrimonial discord and civil suit for permanent injunction against accused no.1 and her family members was also pending before the civil court, whereas I do not find any fault in the observation of Ld. Trial court that the entire evidence was within the reach of complainant and more so there was no dispute with respect to the identify of accused persons, therefore there was no requirement to bring into motion the police force.
5. No doubt upon receiving information as to commission of cognizable offence, police is duty bound to register the FIR but the same does not imply that if police is bound to register a case, Magistrate is also bound to direct police to register the FIR. Lodging report with the police and filing a complaint in court are two parallel remedies. If in all cases FIR is to be registered, there is no use for making provision for filing complaint case in the court.
6. Perusal of the record shows that in the present case, there is nothing which warrants directions for registration of FIR. Reliance is placed upon M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. J NOC Crl. Rev. No.: 137/2013 4/5 333 Delhi wherein it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that " power to direct registration of FIR has to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Cases where complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. It is only where the complainant is not in a position to collect and produce evidence before court and interest of justice demands that police should step in to help the complainant"
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, declining request to issue direction to police under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. is justified. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. TCR alongwith copy of order be sent back to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(SAVITA RAO) Additional Sessions Judge02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court today i.e. on 27.07.2013 Crl. Rev. No.: 137/2013 5/5