Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Narinder Kumar Nagpal vs State / Govt. Gnct on 9 August, 2012

    IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
     JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 397/2011

Narinder Kumar Nagpal
S/o Sita Ram Nagpal, 
R/o 3017­A, Sant Nagar
Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti
Delhi­110 034.
                                                      ......................... Appellant

VERSUS

    1. State / Govt. GNCT, Delhi
    2. ASI Roshan Lal No. 3974 D, Special Branch Delhi.
    3. ASI Jaswant Singh No. 2389D, PS Rani Bagh.
    4. ASI Ramesh Kumar No. 4542D, MACT Cell, Saraswati Vihar.
    5. Ct. Krishan Kumar No. 528/NW, PS Rani Bagh.
    6. Sub Inspector Ved Prakash No. D­1185, PS Rani Bagh.
    7. ACP Jai Bhagwan, SD­III, Jahangirpuri, North West Distt.
    8. ACP Ramesh Chand Saini, Keshav Puram, North­West, Distt.
    9. SHO Vipin Kumar, PS Saraswati Vihar.
    10. Addl. DCP, Sh. B. S. Jaiswal, Ashok Vihar, North­West Distt. 
    11. ACP Gyan Singh Meena, PS Saraswati Vihar.

                                                       ................... Respondents

09.08.2012

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed by the revisionist Narinder Kumar Nagpal against the Order dated 01.10.2011 passed by Sh. Neeraj Gaur, MM, Rohini, thereby dismissing the application under Narinder Kumar Nagpal Vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 5 Section 156 (3) Cr.PC filed by the revisionist and directing him to lead pre­summoning evidence. It is pleaded that the impugned order of the Ld. MM is illegal and cannot sustain in law by not taking proper cognizance and by not directing proper investigations by the police for registration of the FIR. It is pleaded that the Ld. MM has acted illegally in exercising the powers vested with him and has failed to appreciate the fact that the forgeries and manipulations would only come to light after the documents are sent to FSL and other Government Agencies and if needed, to be invested through Crime Branch. It is further pleaded that the Ld. MM has failed to exercise the jurisdiction properly and has ignored the case completely resulting in the mockery of the judicial proceedings and the same is causing an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner of his being denied the proper justice in view of the respondents being police officials who instead of being protector of justice have colluded and conspired with the culprits to the detriment of the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the impugned order of the Ld. MM is based on mere surmises and conjectures and is not based on any cogent or sound reasoning and as such the same cannot be sustained in law. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside, reserved and quashed and the necessary directions be issued for registration of the FIR and for investigation to be conducted to be conducted under supervision of the court.

Narinder Kumar Nagpal Vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 5

I have considered the submissions made before me. I have also gone through the Trial Court record and the reply filed on behalf of the respondents.

At the very outset I may observe that Chapter­XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the information of the police and its powers to investigate the offences. Section 156 of the Code included in this chapter speaks of the powers of the police officers to investigate cognizable cases and sub­clause (3) thereof lays down that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of Code may order such an investigation. Chapter XV of the Code deals with complaints to a magistrate and the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence. This chapter provides an alternative as well as additional remedy to a complainant whose complaint is either not entertained by the police or who does not feel satisfied by the investigations being conducted by the Police.

The provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there is no requirement of passing any orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. This discretion is required to be exercised after proper application of Narinder Kumar Nagpal Vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 5 mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and were the interest of justice demand that the police should step in to help the complainant. Reference in this regard is made to the cases of Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) AD (SC) 129; M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State (Delhi) reported in 2001 (3) RCR (Crl.) 514; and Pawan Verma vs. SHO PS Model Town reported in 2009 (2) JCC 1000.

Further, our own High Court in the case of Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Crl. M.C. No. 6122­23/2005 decided on 9.7.2010 observed that it was necessary for the Magistrate to form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons and about the need for investigations by the police in the matter. It was held that Police investigations are required to be directed by the Magistrate only when the cognizable offence was committed within the jurisdiction of that court and further where the material evidence is not within the control of the revisionist.

Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is writ large that the material / evidence required in the matter has already been obtained by the revisionist by exercising his right under the Right to Information Act, which information is within Narinder Kumar Nagpal Vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 5 his control. He also has right to summon the original record which includes the report of the inquiry conducted by the Department at the time of recording of evidence and hence under the given circumstances, I find no illegality and irregularity in the order of Ld. MM dated 1.10.2011 dismissing the application of the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC and directing him to lead pre­summoning evidence. The revision petition is accordingly disposed off.

The Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court                                  (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated:09.08.2012.                                         ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




Narinder Kumar Nagpal Vs. State & Ors.                                     Page 5 of 5