Delhi District Court
Shri Suresh Verma vs Smt. Anita on 25 July, 2018
-:1:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI) 1
DISTRICT COURTS(SW), DWARKA, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
CR No. : 428/2017
SHRI SURESH VERMA
S/o Shri Jai Gopal Verma,
R/o : C/o Brijwasi Store,
H. No. : G-43, Near Talab,
Qutub Vihar Phase-1,
Near Dwarka Sector 19,
New Delhi - 110 071.
......... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. SMT. ANITA
w/o Late Shri Keshav Soni
2. SMT. VIMLA SONI
3. SH. SAURABH SONI
S/o Late Shri Keshav Soni,
4. SH. KAPIL SONI (SOOM)
S/o Late Shri Keshav Soni,
5. MS. VARSHA SONI
D/o Late Shri Keshav Soni,
CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 1 of 30
-:2:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
All R/o : 281, Baria Ghat 4,
Sagar, Bada Bazar, Tehsil Sagar,
District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470001.
6. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI.
.........Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 428/2017
Date of Institution 12.09.2017
Reserved for orders on 13.07.2018
Judgment announced on 25.07.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC is directed against the impugned order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the Ld. MM-05, (South-West) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application under section 156(3) Cr.PC as well as complaint under section 200 Cr.PC for the offences under sections 417, 500, 506 IPC filed by the complainant (revisionist herein) was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts for disposal of the revision petition are as under :-
3. The revision petition arises out of complaint case bearing CC No.4993125/2016 under CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 2 of 30
-:3:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
Sections 417, 500, 506 IPC read with section 200 Cr.PC, titled as 'Suresh Verma v. Smt. Anita and Ors.' filed by the complainant(revisionist herein). Alongwith the complaint under sections 417, 500, 506 IPC read with section 200 Cr.PC, the complainant(revisionist has filed an application under section 156(3) Cr. PC for registration of the FIR under the proper sections of IPC against the accused persons namely Smt. Anita, Smt. Vimla Soni, Saurabh Soni, Kapil Soni & Varsha Soni (respondent No.1 to 5 herein).
4. In the complaint under section 200 Cr.PC the complainant has stated that on 29.05.2014, the complainant got married with Ms. Pooja in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh and after one month of the marriage, the complainant(revisionist herein) came to know that Ms. Pooja is a mentally unfit girl. The fact that Pooja is a mentally unfit girl, was hidden by his in-laws before the marriage and the complainant and his family members became shocked to see the indifferent and childish behaviour of the wife of the complainant when they became acquainted with the fact that Pooja has a childish and abnormal behaviour. It is stated that she cannot do household CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 3 of 30
-:4:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
work properly and she does not know how to cook food, even she cannot eat properly and she has also a problem of loss of memory as she cannot remember the acts recently done by her. It is further stated in the complaint that on 19.07.2014, on the advice of a family friend who was a doctor, the complainant consulted doctors of AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter, Ms. Pooja was also got examined by senior psychiatrists in Paras Hospital, Gurgaon and after conducting the medical examination of the wife of the complainant, the doctor gave the opinion that intelligence quotient of the wife of the complainant is 73 which is at the borderline level of intelligence. It is further stated in the complaint that fact of abnormal mental condition of the wife of complainant was concealed by the parents of the wife of the complainant and after knowing the truth the complainant contacted the family of his wife in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh and asked them that whey they cheated the complainant and asked them to break the marriage mutually and when they did not give positive reply, the complainant filed petition under section 12(1)C) of HMA for declaring the marriage as null and void in District Courts, Dwarka, Delhi. Thereafter, the CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 4 of 30
-:5:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
parents of wife of the complainant got registered a false complainant in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh regarding missing/ confinement of Pooja and fraudulently got an order under section 97 Cr.PC. It is further stated that on 10.01.2016, mother and bua of complainant's wife reached with police official at the house of complainant and forcefully took complainant's wife with them to Sagar, Madhya Pradesh and threatened to implicate the complainant and his family in false and frivolous cases and face dire consequences and whole incident was seen by the local residents which was very shameful and disrespectful for the family of the complainant and caused harm to the reputation of the complainant and his family. By way of application under section 156(3) Cr.PC, the complainant prayed for direction for registration of criminal case for the offences of cheating, defamation, mental cruelty & harassment and threatening against the accused persons (respondent no.1 to 5 herein).
5. Vide order dated 03.06.2016, Ld. Trial Court directed for calling the Status Report from the concerned Police Station. As per order dated CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 5 of 30
-:6:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
07.11.2016 of the Ld. Trial Court, Status Report was filed informing that address of alleged persons falls in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh and they could not be examined yet and thereafter, vide order dated 07.11.2016, the case was fixed for consideration on maintainability aspect.
6. After hearing the arguments of the complainant on the point of maintainability, vide the impugned order dated 27.06.2017 Ld. Trial court was pleased to dismiss the application under section 156 (3) Cr. PC as well as complaint under section 200 Cr.PC filed by the complainant (revisionist herein) observing therein that the alleged cheating/fraud, if any, is made only at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain/trial such application. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2017, the complainant (revisionist herein) has filed the present revision petition.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and perused record.
8. During the course of arguments, at the CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 6 of 30
-:7:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
very out set, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that he does not press this revision petition in respect of dismissal of application under section 156(3) Cr. PC. However, the same be treated for setting aside the part of the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the trial court qua dismissal of complaint under section 200 Cr. PC and he may be given an opportunity to examine himself under section 200 Cr. PC.
9. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order is erroneous and has been passed by the ld. Trial court in haste against the provisions of law and probabilities of case. It is contended that the trial court did not peruse the Status Report dated 07.11.2016 filed by SI Gajender throughly and properly and has wrongly interpreted the same. It is stated that it is very much clear from the status report dated 07.11.2016 that the IO was seeking more time to examine the alleged accused persons but the trial court did not consider the status report in right manner while passing the impugned order in haste. It is further contended by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant(revisionist herein) that the Ld. Trial CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 7 of 30
-:8:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
court has wrongly held that the alleged cheating/fraud, if any is made i.e. only at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, therefore this court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application and that the Ld. Trial court has focused only on single point of place of marriage but did not consider the other allegations as alleged by the complainant (revisionist herein) in the application under section 156 (3) Cr. PC as well as in complaint under section 200 Cr.PC. Ld. Counsel for the complainant (revisionist herein) has further contended that even if the marriage of the complainant(revisionist herein) with the daughter of accused no.1 (respondent no.1 herein) was solemnized at Sagar and concealment of fact regarding mental condition of complainant's wife was done at the same place i.e. Sagar, Madhya Pradesh but the aforesaid fact of concealment regarding mental condition of the wife of the complainant(revisionist herein) continued at Delhi and fact of cheating by the respondents was revealed to the complainant(revisionist herein) at Delhi after medical tests were done at Delhi and the act of defaming the complainant(revisionist herein) by the accused persons, in the garb of search warrant under section 97 Cr.PC, was done at Delhi CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 8 of 30
-:9:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
and act of threatening to the complainant (revisionist herein) by the accused persons was also committed at Delhi.
10. The complainant(revisionist herein) has filed the present revision petition thereby challenging the order dated 27.06.2017 whereby application under section 156(3) Cr.PC as well as complaint under section 200 Cr. PC was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.
11. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has contended that he does not press the application under section 156 (3) and this revision petition be treated only qua dismissal of complaint under section 200 Cr.PC and he may be given an opportunity to lead evidence by examining himself in support of his complaint under section 200 Cr. PC.
12. In the Status Report dated 02.11.2016, the Investigation Officer has observed :
'.... it is submitted that a complaint in u/s 156(3) Cr. PC of Sh. Suresh Verma S/o Sh. Jai Gopal verma was received at PS Chhawla, New Delhi and the same was marked to me for CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 9 of 30
-:10:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
enquiry. In the above said matter complainant Suresh Verma join enquiry on 04.11.16. Alleged person address falls in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, alleged person could not examine yet. The other facts of complaint is yet to be verified and the enquiry is still going on.'
13. In the impugned order dated 27.06.2017, Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to observe:
Action taken report dated 07.11.2016 was filed by SI Devender Kumar mentioning therein that the address of the alleged person falls in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the alleged person could not be examined.
Thereafter, special quarry was put to the complainant regarding the maintainability of the application and complainant filed written arguments mentioning that lagan ceremony was performed on 25.05.2014 at the residence of the complainant at Delhi but marriage was solemnized on 29.05.2014 at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, and this time also accused persons did not disclose the fact regarding the unsoundness of A1.CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 10 of 30
-:11:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
Perusal of file reveals that the alleged cheating/fraud, if any is made i.e. only at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain/trial such application. Application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC as well as complainant u/S 200 Cr. PC are accordingly hereby dismissed.
14. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials.
15. Section 177 Cr. PC. reads as:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial--Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
16. Section 178 Cr. PC. reads as:
178. Place of inquiry or trial (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 11 of 30
-:12:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
17. As per the complaint under section 200 filed by the complainant, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Ms. Pooja at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of court at Delhi, the complainant has made following allegations in para 9 of the complaint under section 200 Cr. PC:
9. That after knowing the truth complainant contacted the family of Pooja in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh and asked them that why they cheated him and asked them to get this marriage break mutually. For a long time continuously complainant tried to contact them but didn't get any positive reply, after all this when they are not responding to complainant, he filed a petition u/s 12 (1)
(c) of HMA for declaring his marriage as null and void in District Court, Dwarka, Delhi and the said fact was very much in the knowledge of the parents of complainant's wife as their advocate appeared in the court on their behalf on 26.11.2015 but what they done, they registered a false complaint in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh that Pooja is missing/confined and misguide Police/Court of Sagar and on 23 Dec. 2015 they fraudulently got an order under CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 12 of 30
-:13:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
Section 97 Cr.P.C. and on 10 th Jan 2016 Mother and Bua of Pooja reached complainant's home with police officials from Sagar & Local Delhi Police of with the Search Warrant of Pooja under section 97 Cr.P.C. and created a scene at my residence and forcefully take Pooja to Sagar with them. They have taken Pooja very forcefully as she is denied to go Sagar with them. The whole incident was seen by residents of complainant's locality which was very shameful and disrespectful for his family and the same was done by these persons intentionally and in connivance with each other to cause harm to reputation of complainant and his family. They also threatened complainant and his family to implicate in false and frivolous cases and to face dire consequences.
18. As per the allegations of the complainant, the alleged offence of cheating took place at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. The grievance of the complainant is that Ms. Pooja was taken forcefully from his custody under the garb of search warrant issued under section 97 Cr. PC by police/court in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. In the case the complainant is aggrieved by any of the action taken against the complainant on the basis of the warrant under section 97 Cr. PC, the complainant is at liberty to CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 13 of 30
-:14:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
challenge the same at appropriate court/authority, which issued said warrant.
19. The complainant has also sought to invoke the jurisdiction of courts at Delhi for the offence under section 500 & 506 IPC by alleging that the act of taking Ms. Pooja in pursuance of the search warrant under section 97 Cr. PC is shameful to the complainant and the same caused harm to the reputation of the complainant and that the complainant has been threatened of implication in false case.
20. The complaint has only made general allegations of commission of offences under sections 500 & 506 IPC without placing sufficient material on record which could have been corroborated by him in order to prove his contention and same have been made in order to invoke the jurisdiction of court at Delhi.
21. Section 190 Cr. PC. reads as:
190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 14 of 30
-:15:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
second class specially empowered in this behalf under subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence--
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon Information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under subsection(1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
22. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that :
15. The whole purpose of taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.PC is to commence proceedings under Chapter XVI of the Cr.PC by issuing process under Section 204 Cr.PC to the accused involved in the case. No doubt, it is not innocence but involvement that is material at this stage. Once the legal requirements to constitute the alleged offence qua one of the accused are lacking, there is no point in taking cognizance and proceeding further as against him.CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 15 of 30
-:16:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
23. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors.
92014) 2 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that :
91) In Madhu Bala (supra), this court held:
6. ...............
9. ..............
10. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to register a cognizable case on that complaint treating the same as the FIR and comply with the requirements of the above Rules. It, therefore, passes our comprehension as to how the direction of a Magistrate asking the police to register a case makes an order of investigation under Section 156(3) legally unsustainable. Indeed, even if a Magistrate does not pass a direction to register a case, still in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) of the Code which empowers the police to investigate into a cognizable case and the Rules framed under the Indian Police Act, 1861 it (the police) is duty-bound to formally register a case and then investigate into the same. The provisions of the Code, therefore, do not in any way stand in the way of a CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 16 of 30
-:17:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
Magistrate to direct the police to register a case at the police station and then investigate into the same. In our opinion when an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code is to be made the proper direction to the police would be to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the first information report and investigate into the same.
.................................... .................................... ....................................
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 17 of 30
-:18:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
b) Commercial offences CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 18 of 30
-:19:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/ laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 19 of 30-:20:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
24. In Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:
12. It is further submitted that in the present case, the civil proceedings are pending between the parties where the question of genuineness or otherwise of the partnership deed is an issue. The process of criminal law cannot be used when a dispute is primarily of civil nature. Simultaneously initiation of criminal proceedings may be permitted where an offence is shown to have been committed.
Thus, the Magistrate was entitled to satisfy himself as to whether any cognizable offence had been committed before proceeding further. The Magistrate was not satisfied from the material available that any cognizable offence had been committed and he rightly decided to conduct further enquiry under Section 202. Having regard to the limited nature of inquiry under Section 202 which option had been rightly chosen by the Magistrate, direction to the police to investigate and give a report was limited by the very purpose for which the limited inquiry CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 20 of 30
-:21:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
was to be held, as against procedure for investigation in cases not covered under Section 202 of the Code. The purpose was to enable the Magistrate to decide whether there was ground to proceed further. The Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence and the police having not registered a criminal case nor the Magistrate having directed registration of criminal case, procedure and power of the police in the matter are different and in such a situation police did not have the power to arrest without permission of the Magistrate as was the view of the Gujarat and other High Courts.
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, it was observed: (SCC p.711 para 11) "11. The scope of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 21 of 30
-:22:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient . After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC , should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalilta Kumari.
Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 22 of 30
-:23:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that:
22.1. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.
22.2 The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari may fall under Section 202.
22.3 Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case.CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 23 of 30
-:24:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
32. We now come to the last question whether in the present case the Magistrate ought to have proceeded under Section 156(3) instead of Section 202. Our answer is in the negative. The Magistrate has given reasons, which have been upheld by the High Court. The case has been held to be primarily of civil nature. The accused is alleged to have forged partnership. Whether such forgery actually took place, whether it caused any loss to the complainant and whether there is the requisite mens rea are the questions which are yet to be determined. The Magistrate has not found clear material to proceed against the accused. Even a case for summoning has not yet been found. While a transaction giving rise to cause of action for a civil action may also involve a crime in which case resort to criminal proceedings may be justified, there is judicially acknowledged tendency in the commercial world to give colour of a criminal case to a purely commercial transaction. This Court has cautioned against such abuse.
CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 24 of 30-:25:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
33. In Indian Oil Corpn v. NEPC India Ltd., it was observed: (SCC pp. 748- 49,para 13) "13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP this Court observed:(SCC p.643,para8) '8. ......It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 25 of 30
-:26:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
34. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, it was observed: (SCC p. 760, para 28) "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 26 of 30
-:27:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
25. In the impugned order dated 27.06.2017, the Ld. Trial court has been pleased to observe that the perusal of the file reveals that the alleged cheating/fraud, if any, is made only at Sagar, Madhya Pradesh therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain/try the application and was pleased to dismiss the application under section 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint under section 200 Cr.PC.
26. The scope of exercise of power by revisional court has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 27 of 30
-:28:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (supra).
27. In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
11. First, we shall dwell upon the issue whether the High Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, should have adverted to the merits of the case in extenso. As the factual matrix would reveal, the learned Single Judge has dwelled upon in great detail on the statements of the witnesses to arrive at the conclusion that there are remarkable discrepancies with regard to the facts and there is nothing wrong with the investigation.
In fact, he has noted certain facts and deduced certain conclusions, which, as we find, are beyond the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 28 of 30
-:29:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. [see Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460].
28. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. 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 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 CR No: 428/2017 Page No. 29 of 30
-:30:- Suresh Verma v. Anita & Ors.
the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC 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.
29. Consequently, in view of above said discussions, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 27.06.2017. The Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
30. TCR be sent back to the court concerned along with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (HARISH DUDANI) today on 25.07.2018 Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-1 District Courts(SW), Dwarka New Delhi.
Digitally signed by HARISH CR No: 428/2017 HARISH
Page No. 30 of 30
DUDANI
Date:
DUDANI 2018.07.25
14:34:14
+0530