Delhi District Court
Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014 on 22 May, 2014
Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 17/14
Unique Case ID : 02404R01000089114
In Re:
Davender Singhal
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Singhal,
R/o B-8/183, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-85 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Sonu Goel,
S/o Late Shri R.D Goel
Prop. M/s. Shakti Industries
F-6, Sector-1,
DSIDC Bawana Industrial Complex,
Delhi.
2. The State
(NCT of Delhi) ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.02.2014
Date on which Order was reserved: 21.05.2014
Date on which Order pronounced : 22.05.2014
O R D E R:
Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 08.11.13(hereinafter called the impugned order) passed by Ld MM, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, the complainant has filed the present revision petition. By the impugned order, Ld MM had been pleaded to dismiss the application moved U/s 156(3) Cr.PC seeking direction to SHO PS Bawana for registration of FIR against the respondent no. 1 herein.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner herein filed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC alongwith complaint case before Ld Trial Court on the allegations that respondent no. 1 is the younger brother of his brother in law(Jija). He was looking after a property in and around Page 1 of 5 Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014 Bawana for establishing his own business of plastic products. The petitioner purchased mould of plastic injunction vide invoice dated 20.2.12 for a sum of Rs. 1,97,013.00/- and on the assurance of respondent no. 1, he kept the said mould (machine) at the premises of respondent no. 1 situated at F-6, Sector-1, DSIDC, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi for a safe custody. On 17.05.12, when petitioner alongwith his brother Sh Sandeep visited the factory premises of respondent no.1, respondent no.1 refused to hand over the said mould to the petitioner and threatened them of dire consequences. When petitioner and his brother went to the house of respondent no. 1 in the evening of 17.05.12, as respondent no. 1 was younger brother of petitioner's brother in law, the respondent no. 1 alongwith his brother gave beatings to the petitioner and his brother Sh Sandeep and also extended threat to kill them if they demanded the mould. They were medically examined in Jaipur Golden Hospital on 17.05.12 itself. They made police complaint to SHO PS Bawana on 18.05.12 followed by another complaint dated 05.11.12 and subsequent complaint dated 04.02.13 to DCP Outer District but no action was taken by the police authorities.
By impugned order, Ld Trial Court has dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC on the ground that all the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of complainant and same can be proved either by himself or through summoned witnesses and there is no ground requiring assistance of police.
Notice of revision petition was issued to respondent no.1. However, it was reported on ordinary process that process was refused to be accepted by the person who met the process server. Similar, report of refusal was received on notice issued to respondent no. 1 through registered AD cover. Thus, respondent no. 1 was deemed to be served with the notice of revision petition.
The impugned order has been challenged by petitioner mainly on the following grounds:-
Page 2 of 5Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014
(i) Ld Trial Court failed to consider the fact that custodial interrogation of respondent no. 1 is required to effect recovery of the mould and proceeds of crime which cannot be done without assistance of the police;
(ii) The investigation by police is required for exposing the modus- operandi of respondent no.1;
(iii) That issuance of search warrants in terms of Section 93/94 Cr.PC would be required from the Court in order to search and seize the said mould;
(iv) Ld Trial Court did not consider the fact that allegations contained in police complaint were disclosing commission of cognizable offences and thus, police was duty bound to register the FIR in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.PC.
Ld counsel of petitioner argued on the lines of grounds of challenge raised in the present revision petition. He vehemently argued that impugned order has been passed in haste and without appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case. While referring to the status report dt. 02.07.13, filed before Ld MM, Ld counsel of petitioner pointed out that even the said status report is silent in respect of offence of criminal breach of trust alleged by the petitioner. Ld counsel urged that respondent no. 1 did not even join preliminary enquiry conducted by Police Authority as also mentioned in the status report dt. 02.07.13 filed before the Trial Court.
In support of his submissions, Ld counsel also placed reliance upon authorities reported at AIR 1961 SC 751, (1997) 8 SCC 476,(2006) 2 SCC 676, AIR 1956 SC 575 and the celebrated judgment in the matter titled as 'Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP & Ors.' reported at 2013(8) LRC 1(SC).
On the other hand, Ld Additional PP argued that impugned order is well justified and is based upon correct appreciation of facts requiring no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Page 3 of 5 Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014 Court.
I have already heard Sh. Rakesh Nautiyal Adv on behalf of petitioner and Sh. Girish Giri, Ld Substitute Additional PP on behalf of respondent no. 2/State. I have also perused the material on record.
No doubt, there is a discretion vested with Ld MM either to direct registration of FIR or to call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses before him while considering his prayer made U/s 156(3) Cr.PC for registration of FIR. However, the said discretion has to be exercised judiciously on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. It goes without saying that revisional Court ought to issue appropriate directions in case discretion exercised by MM is not found to be in accordance with law in the light of facts and circumstances of particular case.
In the case in hand, there are direct and specific allegations levelled by complainant/petitioner that he had entrusted mould to respondent no. 1 on his assurance that he would return back the same as and when required but subsequently, he failed to return the the said mould despite being demanded by the complainant/petitioner. There are also allegations that respondent no. 1 alongwith his brother gave beatings to the complainant/petitioner and also extended threats to kill them.
Moreover, field investigation is required by the police in order to recover the mould of the petitioner. Ld counsel of petitioner had also referred to the copy of delivery receipt in support of his contention that mould was directly delivered at the premises of respondent no. 1 situated at F-6, Sector-1, DSIDC, Bawana Industrial Complex, Delhi. He claimed that signature/initials appearing in the column meant for mentioning the amount, etc. just above the word 'OK' is that of respondent no. 1 in token of having received the said mould. If that is so then field investigation would be required to get the said signature/initials compared with the specimen signature/initials and/or Page 4 of 5 Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014 admitted signature/initials of respondent no. 1 in order to test the veracity of allegations made by the complainant/petitioner. Same is not within the domain of complainant/petitioner and would be requiring police assistance.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Court is of the view that it is a fit case where Ld Trial Court ought to have issued directions for registration of FIR by exercising the jurisdiction vested in him. Ld MM has not properly exercised his jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dt. 08.11.13 passed by Ld MM is hereby set aside. Ld Trial Court /Successor Court is directed to issue directions to SHO PS Bawana for registration of FIR under appropriate provisions of law and to get the matter investigated in fair and proper manner. TCR be sent back to the trial Court/successor Court alongwith copy of this Order. Petitioner is directed to appear before Ld Trial Court /Successor Court on 26.05.14. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on 22.05.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge-04
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi
Page 5 of 5
Davender Singhal vs Sonu Goel Crl. Rev. 17/14 22.05.2014
Page 6 of 5