Delhi District Court
Revisionists vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.151/17
ID No. DLSE010022052017
Sanjeev Chopra
S/o Shri P.C. Chopra
Flat No.60B, Pocket A12,
DDA Flats, Kalka Ji Extension,
New Delhi - 110019
. . . . Revisionists
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent No.1
2. Shri Inderjeet Banerjee
3. Ms. Swastik Banerjee
4. Shri Samrat Baneerjee R/o Flat No.60A, Pocket A12, DDA Flats, Kalka Ji Extension, New Delhi - 110019 .... Respondent No.2 to 4 ____________________________________________________________ Date of Institution : 17.03.2017 Date when arguments were heard : 22.08.2017 Date of Judgment : 29.08.2017 CR No.151/17 1 of 9 ORDER :
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the criminal revision petition u/s 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the order dated 26.12.16 passed by Ld. MM in CC No.636174/16 titled as "Sanjeev Chopra Vs. Inderjeet Banerjee & Ors."
Vide the impugned order, Ld. MM has dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for direction to the SHO concerned to register the FIR against the proposed accused arrayed in complaint filed u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of revision petition was issued to respondents and the trial court record was summoned for perusal.
3. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionists and respondents.
4. The facts, in nutshell, are that revisionist / complainant Sanjeev Chopra is residing at Flat No.60B, Pocket A12, DDA Flats, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. He owns a car bearing registration No.DL 3CBA6732 which he usually park by the side of flat No.60A, B and C. On 05.09.16, he made complaint to SHO PS Govind Puri to register the FIR with regard to the damage caused to his car on 04.09.16. It was stated in the complaint that complainant's car was parked by the side of flat No.60A, B and C as usual. The revisionist / complainant was informed by one Neeraj Chadha, son of Joint Secretary of RWA of Vaishali Apartment Pocket A12, Kalkaji Extension regarding damage done to his car. The Chowkidar Shri Khagesh Jha and Shri Lal Chand CR No.151/17 2 of 9 had also seen the damage on the car on 04.09.16 at 11:45 PM, while patrolling in the colony. The revisionist / complainant called the police and filed complaint before the SHO PS Govind Puri, who registered a Noncognizable Report for the offence u/s 427 IPC. The complainant / revisionist not being satisfied with registration of NCR only approached senior officers by making complaint to Commissioner of Police and DCP SouthEast, but no further action was taken.
5. Aggrieved by the nonaction on the part of the police officials, the revisionist / complainant preferred to file criminal complaint u/s 200 read with section 190 Cr.P.C. for the commission of offence punishable u/s 435/427/120B/34 IPC. He arrayed one Inderjeet Banerjee, Ms. Swastik Banerjee, Samrat Banerjee and SHO of Police Station Govind Puri as the proposed accused. It may be mentioned that proposed accused No.1 to 3 were only suspects in the eyes of revisionist / complainant. He was not having any credible information that they were the culprits or they have done anything with his car.
6. Ld. MM sought the Action Taken Report from SHO Govind Puri on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that evidence is within the control of revisionist / complainant and there is no material on record which required investigation by the police. Ld. MM, therefore, dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. but gave an opportunity to revisionist / complainant to record his presummoning evidence.
7. Ld. Counsel for revisionist / complainant has submitted that the CR No.151/17 3 of 9 impugned order has been passed mechanically without considering the fact that revisionist / complainant had no clue about the real culprit and he only suspected the arrayed accused on the basis of previous litigation between both the parties. It was submitted that police investigation was required as the offenders of the incident were to be ascertained and determined. He submitted that a cognizable offence has been committed, where the offenders were not known to the revisionist / complainant, therefore, a direction from Ld. MM was necessary for registration of an FIR. The Ld. APP for State and counsel for other respondents have supported the impugned order stating that the revisionist / complainant has been given an opportunity to lead his evidence and in case, any need for investigation is felt during the said inquiry, Ld. MM can always opt for investigation by police under the provision of section 202 (1) Cr.P.C.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that SHO PS Govind Puri was not at fault in registering FIR u/s 427 IPC. The mischief has been defined in section 425 IPC which reads as under: "425. Mischief. Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in CR No.151/17 4 of 9 any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Mischief as defined in section 425 IPC is punishable u/s 427 IPC which reads as under: "427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees - Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
9. The submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist / complainant that section 435 IPC was attracted is not found convincing particularly at this stage when there is nothing on record to suggest that damage to car was done by fire or any explosive substance has been used to cause damage to his car.
10. As per ScheduleI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 427 IPC is a noncognizable offence, therefore, the complaint with regard to such commission of offence is to be registered under section 155 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "155. Information as to noncognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of CR No.151/17 5 of 9 the commission within the limits of such station of a noncognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the oher offences are noncognizable."
11. When the commission of a cognizable offence is informed to OfficerinCharge of Police Station, he has to register information (FIR) u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and proceed with an investigation as per the provision thereafter provided. However, in case of an information with CR No.151/17 6 of 9 regard to a noncognizable offence, the information has to be recorded u/s 155 Cr.P.C. In case of registration of information (FIR) under section 154 Cr.P.C., OfficerinCharge of Police Station can start investigation under section 156 (1) Cr.P.C. without any order from Magistrate. But in case of a noncognizable offence, a police official cannot start with the investigation without the order from a Magistrate. Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. specifically provides that no police shall investigate the matter without the order of the Magistrate. Section 155 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that after recording the information of a non cognizable offence, the officer in charge of the Police Station may refer the informant to Magistrate. On receipt of report of a noncognizable offence, the OfficerinCharge of Police Station may refer the informant to Magistrate. He may also request the Magistrate seeking order to investigate the case. This is not provided in specific words in section 155 Cr.P.C. But this option is inherent in section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. which says no police officer shall investigate a noncognizable offence without the order of Magistrate. Once such an order is given, police officer shall investigate in noncognizable offence in the same manner as is done in case of a cognizable offence.
12. In the present case, the NCR (NonCognizable Report) has already been registered u/s 155 Cr.P.C. in respect of the offence vide NCR No.0192/2016. It is a fact that revisionist / complainant is not aware as to who has caused damage to his vehicle. Therefore, simply CR No.151/17 7 of 9 permitting him to lead evidence u/s 200 Cr.P.C. in his complaint will not lead to any logical conclusion. To ascertain the offender of the act, a specialized agency is required to investigate the matter. An expertise is required to investigate the matter which cannot be expected from revisionist / complainant. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, it would have been appropriate for Ld. MM to order the SHO of Police Station Govind Puri to investigate the matter in NCR No.0192/2016 and submit the report. Needless to say that once permission u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. has been granted by a Magistrate to the police official to investigate the case, the report has to be filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. by the police after conclusion of investigation in the same manner as is filed in case of investigation of an offence which is cognizable in nature.
13. So far as the grievance with regard to the offence punishable u/s 435 IPC is concerned, suffice it would be to mention that if during the investigation, some offence, other than offence under section 427 IPC is made out, the SHO of Police Station will be at liberty to add that offence in the NCR. As on this date from whatever is on record, nothing more than an offence under section 427 IPC is made out in the given circumstances.
14. Though, the impugned order dated 26.12.16 dismissing the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was justified, but the order is based on wrong premises that evidence was neither the control of the CR No.151/17 8 of 9 complainant / revisionist and accused are known to him. Fact of the matter is that the complainant / revisionist does not even know, who has caused damage to his car. This aspect need to be investigated. But direction u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was not warranted because facts disclose commission of a noncognizable offence. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed off with direction to OfficerinCharge of PS Govind Puri to investigate in the NCR No.0192/2016, and submit report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. to the concerned MM, who shall proceed with the matter as per law. The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.
15. A true copy of the order alongwith TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned, who shall communicate the direction as above to OfficerinCharge, PS Govind Puri.
16. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
court today i.e. 29.08.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.151/17 9 of 9