Delhi District Court
Suman Sachdeva vs State on 13 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 24 of 2023
CNR No. DLSE01-000541-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Suman Sachdeva
W/o Sh. S.C. Sachdeva
R/o C-47B, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019.
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. State
Through Ld. Public Prosecutor
2. Miss Jagjit Kaur
D/o Sh. Ranbir Singh
R/o 111/9N, Flat No. 15,
Shanti Apartment, Kishan Garh,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
........Respondents
Instituted on : 13.01.2023
Reserved on : Not reserved
Pronounced on : 13.01.2023
Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 10
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13
14:34:59 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant petition, revisionist takes exception to the order dated 17.12.2022, whereby his application under section 156(3) CrPC in case bearing CT Cases No. 274/2021 titled as "Mukesh Berry vs. Jagjit Kaur", stood dismissed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-10 (MM), South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts as noted by Ld. MM in the impugned order are being reproduced for the sake of convenience :-
"Brief facts of this case are that the father of complainants, Sh. Ram Lal Berry died on 29.05.1998, leaving behind Mrs. Kamlesh (daughter), Komal (daughter), Mukesh (son), Rakesh (son) and Mrs. Suman (daughter) as legal heirs and out of these legal heirs, Kamlesh and Rakesh died on 07.08.2019 and 15.05.2017, respectively. It is stated that Rakesh Kumar died as a bachelor and upon his death one stranger lady i.e. accused No.1 in collusion and connivance with tehsildar illegally got issued 'surviving member certificate' bearing No.90660000053235 and on the basis of the said certificate, accused no.1 started claiming herself to be the widow of late Rakesh.
It has been further stated that accused had even used the abovesaid forged and fabricated certificate while filing vexatious and baseless civil suit against the complainant before the Senior Civil Judge, South East. The accused had also filed forged and fabricated documents in SBI Bank and there also, she had claimed to be widow of late Rakesh. The accused has dishonestly used the forged abovementioned surviving member certificate as original to mislead and play fraud upon the Hon'ble SCJ, South East and pursuant to which, an exparte injunction dated 05.12.2019 was passed by the said Court. It has been stated that the above mentioned certificate was obtained by the accused on the basis of false self declaration and which was duly accepted by the office of Tehsildar without verification or inspection.
It has been further mentioned that accused was never Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 10 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13 14:36:20 +0530 married to late Sh. Rakesh in the January 2011, as accused purchased a flat and a sale deed got executed and her name was mentioned as Ms. Jagjeet Kaur @ Jagjit Kaur, daughter of Sh. Ranbir Singh and even in the electoral role, her name is mentioned as Jagjit Kaur daughter of Ranbir Singh. The complainant made a complaint to the SHO, PS Lajpat Nagar and other higher authority but they are not taking any action nor lodging complaint of the complainant against the accused persons. Hence, the present application."
3. Pursuant to the directions of Ld. MM, Action Taken Report came to be filed by concerned Inquiry Officer, Police Station Lajpat Nagar before Ld. MM wherein it was reported that no cognizable offence was committed within the jurisdiction of PS Lajpat Nagar. It was further reported that the civil litigation is already pending between the parties before Ld. Senior Civil Judge, South East.
3A. After considering the ATR and after hearing the revisionist, Ld. MM dismissed the application of revisionist under section 156(3) CrPC with following relevant observations :-
"After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the present case pertains to a family dispute within the family and the civil litigation could be due to the said dispute only. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where direction should be issued for registration of FIR as the complainant is well aware of the name and address of accused and is well versed with the facts of the case. Thus, the entire evidence is well within the reach of the complainant to prove the allegations against accused person. It is well settled in the case of M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State reported as 2001 (IV) AD (Delhi) 625 that power of directing police to register case and initiate investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. When field investigation by the police is not required and the complainant is in a position to collect and produce evidence before the court, orders for registration of FIR need not be Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 10 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13 14:36:32 +0530 passed.
Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Put up for consideration of complaint u/s 200 CrPC on 12.04.2023."
4. Revisionist is aggrieved with the said order and has assailed the same on various grounds which can be summarized as under :-
(i) That impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and same is liable to be set-aside;
(ii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are many evidences beyond the reach of complainant which can only be brought on record by custodial interrogation of respondent No.2;
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the role of Tehsildar is doubtful and raises a grave suspicion of corruption and connivance by former with respondent No.2;
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per the complaint of revisionist, cognizable offence is made out against respondent No.2;
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has advanced arguments on the line of grounds as taken in the instant revision petition. He has forcefully argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Ld. MM was duty bound to order for registration of FIR as the facts averred in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is urged that all the evidence is not within the possession of revisionist and assistance of police would be required for effective investigation. It is further urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the application under section 156 (3) CrPC deserves to be allowed by passing appropriate directions for registration of the FIR in the instant case.
Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 10
ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13
14:36:43 +0530
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for revisionist and perused the record.
7. Before testing the case of the revisionist on merits, the issue of the maintainability of the instant revision ought to be resolved first.
8. Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the decision reported as AIR 2014 All 214 Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P. dealing with the issue of maintainability of a revision petition against the order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. held:-
"58. xxx In view of the discussion above and for the reasons which we have furnished, we have come to the following conclusion:
(i) Before the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas, the controversy was whether a direction to the Police to register a First Information Report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is open to Revision at the instance of a person suspected of having committed a crime against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued. Such an Order was held to be interlocutory in nature and, therefore, to attract the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397. The decision in Father Thomas does not decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application under Section 156(3), would be amenable to a Revision under Section 397, by the Complainant or the informant, whose Application has been rejected;
(ii) An Order of the Magistrate rejecting an Application under Section 156(3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the Police and for investigation is not an Interlocutory Order. Such an Order is amenable to the remedy of a Criminal Revision under Section 397; and (iii) In proceedings in Revision under Section 397, the prospective Accused or, as the case may be, the person, who is suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the Criminal Revision."
Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 10 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13 14:36:52 +0530
9. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017 observed at para 13 :-
"13. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable."
10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is held that the instant revision petition is maintainable. Having resolved the issue of maintainability in favour of the revisionist, now I proceed to test the case of the revisionist on its merits.
11. After going through the records and hearing the arguments, I am of the view that Ld. MM has rightly observed that identity of the accused persons is well established and all the evidence is within the reach and knowledge of revisionist and nothing new is to be collected for which the assistance of police agency is required. In my view, the entire evidence is within possession of revisionist and no investigation by police is required for collection of any evidence. If assistance of police would be Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 10 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13 14:37:02 +0530 required at any stage, same can be had by resorting to provisions of section 202 CrPC by the Ld. MM.
12. In Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that:-
"Magistrates should act under Section 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusation".
13. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi) that :-
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s156. But cases, where Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such, declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified''.
Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 10
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13
14:37:13 +0530
14. In my considered view, once an application under section 156 (3) CrPC is moved before a Magistrate, he has two options. He can either send the case for investigation to concerned Police Station in the facts and circumstances of a particular case or instead of doing so, he may opt for taking cognizance on the complaint of the complainant, may proceed to record the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses in pre-
summoning evidence and thereafter, may decide whether a case for summoning of accused is made out or not. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr , 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
15. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein it has been observed as under :
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 10 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13 14:37:22 +0530 material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
16. This view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1786, in the following words :
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."
17. Similar are the observations of Hon'ble High Court in Rajender Singh Thakur Vs State & Anr, Crl Rev. P. No. 155/2022, decided on 22.03.2022.
Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 10
ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13
14:37:31 +0530
18. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Ld. MM has passed the impugned order after considering all the relevant factors and this court can not interfere with rightful exercise of the discretionary powers vested in the Ld. MM.
19. In the case at hand, I find that the Ld. MM has rightly exercised the discretionary power vested in him. I do not find any malafide or arbitrary exercise of discretion. Accordingly, this court finds no valid reasons to interfere in the order dated 17.12.2022. The instant revision petition stands dismissed accordingly.
20. TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of the judgment.
21. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed by compliance. ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2023.01.13 14:37:40 +0530 Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL) Court on 13th January, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-05, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl Rev. No. 24 of 2023 Suman Sachdeva Vs State & Ors. Page No. 10 of 10