Delhi District Court
Kusum Gupta vs State on 23 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE 02CUMSPECIAL JUDGENDPS ACT, NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 249/2019
KUSUM GUPTA
W/o Sh. A.K. Gupta,
R/o 549B, Rishi Nagar,
Rani Bagh, Delhi. ....Applicant/Petitioner
Vs.
STATE
(Through G.N.C.T.D) .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 21.12.2019
Date when judgment was reserved : 07.09.2020
Date when judgment is pronounced : 23.09.2020
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this order I would dispose of the criminal revision filed by the petitioner u/s 397/399 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by Sh. Sushil Kumar, Ld. M.M, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as impugned order) in a miscellaneous application which was filed on 24.07.2019 in the above mentioned matter. It is also contended that the impugned order is not maintainable and against the third principle of natural C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 1 of 8 justice i.e. the order/decision/judgment of the Court given by the presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground and relied upon the judgment of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Decided on 13.12.2012.
2. By filing the present revision petition, the petitioner/revisionist is seeking setting aside of the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by Sh. Sushil Kumar, Ld. MM, Rohini by which the miscellaneous application of the present applicant/revisionist (filed on 24.07.2019) was dismissed in her pending application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. while refusing her to supply the copy of CDR and GPS location of mobile phone number of the applicant and her family members which was ordered to be preserved vide order dated 17.01.2019 by the Ld. M.M in respect of another application filed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (bearing C.C No. 5152/18).
3. It is submitted by the petitioner/revisionist that the police officials of P.S. Rani Bagh had falsely registered an FIR No. 23/2018, under Sections 186/353/332/354/506/509/34 IPC against the revisionist/complainant as well her son Sh. Utkarsh Gupta on the ground that when the police official of P.S. Rani Bagh went to the address of the revisionist on account of serving notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. on the husband of the complainant/revisionist in respect to the pending investigation qua FIR No. 193/17, P.S. Rani Bagh, it is further alleged that the complainant/revisionist and her son were beaten by the police officials and son of the complainant also tried to outrage the modesty of lady police constable who was C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 2 of 8 accompanying with the police officials of P.S. Rani Bagh at the time the notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C was tendered to be served.
It is further contended that FIR No. 23/18 has been registered on false and frivolous ground as well as on the false DD entry made by the police officials in the concerned police station only to harass the revisionist/complainant and her family members.
4. It is submitted that after registration of FIR No. 23/18, P.S. Rani Bagh, the present revisionist/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C along with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C against the erring police officials of P.S. Rani Bagh for registration of FIR in respect to forceful and illegal trespass by the police officials in her house and taking away/snatched the amount/money of Rs.1.50 lakh approximately, important documents and articles from the house of the revisionist/complainant on 24.01.2018 and despite several opportunities given by Ld. M.M to the police officials to file the status report in respect to the pending application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (filed on 20.02.2018), no proper reply was filed.
During pendency of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the miscellaneous application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist/complainant on 04.01.2019 seeking preservation of CDR and GPS location of mobile phone numbers of the revisionist/complainant and her family members and after consideration, the same was allowed by the Ld. M.M vide order dated 17.01.2019. Consequently another miscellaneous application was filed on 24.07.2019 by the present revisionist/complainant C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 3 of 8 seeking directions to the SHO P.S Rani Bagh to supply the certified copy of the CDR along with GPS location of mobile phone numbers of the revisionist/complainant and her family members, however, the said prayer was declined by the Ld. MM vide order dated 02.11.2019 resulting into filing of the present revision petition.
5. It is also contended that there is likelihood of tampering or destroy the record i.e. CDR and GPS location are related to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C which was kept with the SHO P.S. Rani Bagh because the CDR and GPS location will falsify the DD entry dated 24.01.2018 as well as the contents of the FIR bearing No. 23/18.
Further, despite filing the above noted miscellaneous application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., inadvertently the FIR No. 23/18 has been mentioned since the order dated 12.09.2019 to 02.11.2019 and that CDR and GPS location are nothing to do with the FIR No. 23/18 and no prejudice will be caused to the State, if the copies are supplied to the revisionist/complainant.
6. Ld. Addl. PP opposed the present revision petition and relied upon the judgment of Attar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) in Crl.M.C. No. 406/2016 decided on 18.07.2016.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record.
C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 4 of 88. Before proceeding further, it is important to mention here that the revisionist/complainant had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C on 20.02.2018 for registration of FIR against the erring police officials who were allegedly forcefully and illegally entered in the house of the revisionist and took away the important documents, articles and Rs.1,50,000/ approximately.
9. Further, from the record it is revealed that both the applications i.e. dated 04.01.2019 seeking directions for preservation of CDR and GPS location of mobile phone numbers of the revisionist/complainant and her family members and another misc. application (filed on 24.07.2019) seeking directions to supply the certified copy of CDR and GPS location of mobile phone numbers of the revisionist/complainant and her family members had been filed in the pending application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C .
Further, on perusal of the record pertaining to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, it is established that the impugned order has been passed on the miscellaneous application filed in the pending application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and it appears that inadvertently FIR No. 23/18 has been mentioned in the order sheet which has nothing to do with the contents of the FIR No. 23/18 as well as its charge sheet.
10. It is settled law that whenever the application under Section 156 C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 5 of 8 (3) Cr.P.C in respect to registration of FIR qua the information of cognizable offence is filed, the police officer is supposed to file the status report and explain the reason for not registering the FIR and after satisfaction, the Ld. M.M can direct the SHO concerned to register an FIR in respect to information qua the commission of cognizable offence. It is also the rule of law and practice as to when any status report in respect to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is filed, the copy of the same is supposed to be supplied to the complainant and it cannot be said that any prejudice shall be caused to the police officials by supplying it.
11. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ratio of judgment relied by the Ld. APP (referred in para No. 6 above) is not applicable to the given facts and circumstances because in that case, the CDR and GPS location of the police officers/investigating officers was sought to be made whereas in the present case, the present applicant/revisionist is seeking CDR and GPS location of her mobile phone number as well as the mobile phone numbers of her family members. Further, during arguments, the revisionist submitted that the CDR and GPS location record may be at least kept in the Court itself till disposal of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C so that the chance of tampering of CDR and GPS location can be avoided.
C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 6 of 812. Further, I am of the further considered view that if CDR and GPS location of the mobile phone numbers are important for adjudication of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C of the applicant/revisionist and in the impugned order, no reason has been mentioned for not supplying the copy of CDR/GPS location to the applicant/revisionist, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the further considered view that no prejudice shall be caused to the police officials in case, the CDR and GPS location record is ordered to be filed in the concerned Court of Ld. M.M. which may rather important for adjudication of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or at later stage can be used in evidence subject to proving in respect to the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C of the applicant/complainant/revisionist. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the SHO P.S. Rani Bagh is directed to file the CDR and GPS location record of the mobile phone numbers of the applicant/revisionist and her family members along with the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in the concerned Court within 2 weeks.
14. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 7 of 8 of.
Trial Court Record be sent back with the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
RAKESH Digitally signed
by RAKESH
KUMAR KUMAR IV
Date: 2020.09.23
IV 16:44:05 +0530
(Rakesh KumarIV)
Announced in Open Court ASJ02cumSpecial Judge,
on 23rd Day of September, 2019 (NDPS), NorthWest District,
Rohini:Delhi
C.R No. 249/19 Kusum Gupta Vs. State Page 8 of 8