Delhi District Court
Dr. Mahabir Prasad Yadav vs State on 6 December, 2022
DLNW010056652020
Presented on : 31-08-2020
Registered on : 02-09-2020
Decided on : 06-12-2022
Duration : 2 years, 3 months, 6
days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Rev/65/2020
Dr. Mahabir Prasad Yadav
R/o 354A, Pocket D6,
Sector 6, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
....Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
State
....Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner in person.
APP for State Sh. Kumar Sanjay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. No. 65/2020 M P Yadav Vs. State Page no. 1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06-12-2022)
1. The petitioner has impugned the order of ld. MM dated 25.08.2020 dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and consigning to record room without giving an opportunity under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the complaint.
2. Heard. TCR perused.
3. The complainant has alleged in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that he is an assistant professor residing at 354-A, Pkt. 6, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi -85 and the alleged accused Suraj and Vishal who are running a tea stall at the ground floor of his residence have blocked the main sewage due to which the waste water of house of complainant was returning back and when complained to MCD and DJB staffs, those alleged persons did not allow them to check the obstructions. Complainant had called police and when in presence of police the local sweeping staff had checked the main sewage pipe it was found that it was deliberately blocked by use of cement, brick, plastic and clothes and on advice of PCR officials complainant filed the complaint before police station but police did not take any action. Complainant had to approach DCP concerned even then no action was taken by police despite the fact that local police officials were orally directed to register the FIR. C.R. No. 65/2020 M P Yadav Vs. State Page no. 2
4. Therefore, the complainant filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on which ld. MM called status report and after considering the status report holding that no cognizable is found to have been committed, dismissed the application and consigned the file to record room.
5. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the complainant specifically disclosed the commission of offence under Section 432 IPC which is cognizable. Therefore, the order of ld. MM is wrong and liable to be set aside.
6. It was infact wrong on the part of ld. MM to hold that no cognizable offence is made out when complainant specifically mentioned in the complaint about blocking of public drainage by the alleged persons. The complaint not only speaks about blocking of drainage but also shows that in presence of police officials when this blockage was tried to be opened it was found blocked with cement, bricks, plastic and clothes.
7. Section 432 IPC provides punishment for causing mischief by causing inundation or obstruction of public drainage attended with damage. This is cognizable offence.
8. However, it is not always necessary to order investigation in all cognizable cases. The complainant must show the need of investigation by the police officials viz. Recoveries or C.R. No. 65/2020 M P Yadav Vs. State Page no. 3 discoveries to be effected or any seizures to be made. The alleged persons who are running tea stall are known to complainant and the blockage has already been removed, there was nothing for police to act upon or conduct investigation.
9. The offence was, nevertheless, committed the moment the drain was blocked. It was the complainant who has suffered damages by this blockage as his life was disturbed. The complainant has shown that after the blockage was found in presence of police officials, the complainant was not allowed to remove that blockage and the alleged persons threatened the complainant, therefore, he had to move application before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi of police protection. Vide order dated 16.10.2020, Hon'ble High Court after recording the entire incident and after going through the report of SHO directed the SHO concerned to ensure that the offence is not repeated by occupants of ground floor i.e. the alleged persons.
10. The status report filed by SHO concerned before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15.10.2020 records that owner of tea stall has been directed not to interfere in the working of DJB/MCD officials at the time when the drain is being cleaned. This shows that this blockage has continued for about three months. One can not imagine the pain and disturbance suffered by complainant in this period.
11. However, it was not incumbent for ld. MM to order for C.R. No. 65/2020 M P Yadav Vs. State Page no. 4 registration of FIR in this case as rightly recorded by ld. MM there was no need of any custodial interrogation nor any recovery or discovery had to be effected. At the same time, ld. MM has power to take cognizance on this application treating the same as complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Ld. MM, however, preferred not to give opportunity to complainant to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
ORDER
12. In view of the above, as the complaint of complainant discloses cognizable offence, ld. Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to complainant to lead pre summoning evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Revision petition is disposed of.
13. TCR be sent back to concerned Court alongwith copy of this judgment, for 14.12.2022 so that a date be given to complainant for pre summoning evidence. Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2022.12.06 17:03:36 +0530 Date : 06-12-2022 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/06.12.2022 Dictated on : 06.12.2022 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Transcribed on : 06.12.2022 VIKRAM Date:
checked on : 06.12.2022 2022.12.06
17:03:54 +0530
Signed on : 06.12.2022
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/06.12.2022
C.R. No. 65/2020 M P Yadav Vs. State Page no. 5