Delhi District Court
Sh. Surender Manaktala vs Sh. Satyanand Arya on 28 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sh. Surender Manaktala,
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Pal,
R/o 21/68, Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026. .....Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Satyanand Arya,
President, Arya Samaj,
Road No.46A, Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026.
2. Sh. Rajiv Arya,
Vice President, Arya Samaj,
Road No.46A, Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026.
3. Sh. Ashok Mehtani,
Secretary, Arya Samaj,
Road No.46A, Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026.
4. Sh. Arvind Nagpal,
Joint Secretary, Arya Samaj,
Road No.46A, Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026.
5. Sh. A.K. Dhawan,
Treasurer, Arya Samaj,
Road No.46A, Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026.
Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.1 of pages 11
6. Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta,
Member Enquiry Committee,
Arya Samaj, Road No.46A,
Punjabi Bagh West,
New Delhi - 110026. .....Respondents.
CR No. 2/2015
Date of filing 23.01.2015
Reserved for orders on 20.08.2015
Judgment announced on 28.08.2015
:J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a revision petition filed by Sh. Surender Manaktala, the revisionist, thereby impugning the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by Ld. M.M.(West): Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the application of revisionist filed U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for issuance of directions U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the accused persons/respondents herein was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court and the case was fixed for complainant's presummoning evidence.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that, complainant/ revisionist herein received a copy of show cause notice alongwith the copy of front and rear side of an envelop from the accused in the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sushant Changotra, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 09.01.2014. On the envelop, it was mentioned on front side "Sh. Surender Pal Manaktala, 21/68, First Floor, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi-110026", which is correct address of the complainant. Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.2 of pages 11 On the rear side of envelop, it was mentioned "Refused" alongwith signature and date. The complainant/revisionist herein was shocked to receive this envelop of Speed Post because he had not refused to take any Speed Post or registered Post from the Arya Samaj, Punjabi Bagh West, Delhi. It was not only shocking but surprising for the complainant because no postman from Punjabi Bagh Post came, so there was no question of refusing the above said speed post. After this, the complainant filed an application dated 13.02.2014 under RTI Act in the Post Office, Punjabi Bagh seeking the reason why the Speed Post No. ED258407195IN was returned to the sender. The complainant had received a reply of his RTI application dated 13.02.2014 through a letter from the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi West, New Delhi110028 bearing no.RIA/NDW/113/2013/14 dated 24.02.2014, wherein the Post Office had mentioned that "As per report of the Post Master Punjabi Bagh, Post Office reason was incomplete address". It was further mentioned in the said reply that address mentioned on delivery slip was Mr. S. Pal Manka 21, Punjabi Bagh. It is pertinent to mention here that in Delivery Slip dated 29.08.2013 of Punjabi Bagh Post Office, New Delhi, the address of the complainant was mentioned as Mr. S.Pal Manka, 21, Punjabi Bagh and remark of the postman was "Adhura Pata ateh vapis". Further as per the reply of RTI application of the complainant, it is clear that the accused persons had sent the above said show cause notice to the complainant on "Mr. S. Pal Manka, 21 Punjabi Bagh" and it was returned back to the accused as the address Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.3 of pages 11 was incorrect. The accused had intentionally wrote incorrect address of the complainant so that it could not be served to the complainant because they did not want reply or appearance of the complainant for the above said show cause notice and they would expel the complainant by showing forged refusal of the above said show cause notice. Further after returning the above said Speed Post, the accused persons had forged the original envelop which was returned back to the accused due to insufficient and incorrect address. The accused had mentioned the correct address of the complainant on the forged envelop on the front side with sticker of "EMS Speed Post" bearing no.ED258407195IN. The accused persons had forged the original envelop on the rear side by mentioning refused and had also forged by a false and forged signature of the postman of concerned Post Office. The accused had also forged the original envelop by putting forged seal of Punjabi Bagh Post Office. Further the complainant contacted the postman of his area, who clearly stated that the remarks and signature on envelop is not mine and it has been forged. He further said that he had returned the above said Speed Post with remark "Adhura Pata" so there is no question of remark refusal. The postman further said that the original envelop had been forged. It is further stated in the complaint that accused persons had used the official sticker of EMS Speed Post on the forged document and had also used forged seal of Punjabi Bagh Post Office on the forged document. The accused persons had intentionally and with full planning forged the official documents of Post Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.4 of pages 11 Office. They had planned all this with the intention that the complainant could not receive the above said Show Cause Notice and at the same time, they can prove that complainant had refused to receive the Show Cause Notice and on the basis of forged refusal of complainant, they can expel the complainant from the primary membership and Sabhasad of Arya Samaj, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Status report was called in the matter by the Trial Court. Then after hearing the submissions of Ld. Counsel for complainant/revisionist herein, application of complainant filed U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order, which is being assailed by the complainant on various grounds as mentioned in the petition itself.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for revisionist. I have also perused the entire material placed before me including the impugned order, record summoned from Trial Court, contents of revision petition particularly grounds taken therein.
4. According to Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, the impugned order as passed by Ld. Trial Court is wrong and contrary to law as well as the ATR filed by the IO during the proceedings is also wrong and contrary to law. The revisionist had filed an application under RTI Act on 05.09.2014 before the Director General Post, Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi for supply of the copies of all correspondence regarding speed post articles bearing no.ED258407195IN showing the present status of the case, to which he received a reply dated 20.01.2015 and postal Department had supplied a copy of letter/complaint to the SHO, Punjabi Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.5 of pages 11 Bagh Police Station, New Delhi in which the Postal Department had requested to the police to look into the matter and register an FIR. The postal department had mentioned the reasons for their complaints. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that the interpretation of IO in respect of Status Report about the reply of Dy. Manager, Speed Post Centre, Market Road, New Delhi is correct. IO has stated in the Status Report that as per the reply of the Speed Post Officer, Goal Market, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Delhi, the Speed Post No.ED258407195IN dated 28.08.2013 is found correct. IO further stated that allegation made by the complainant/petitioner could not sustain and no cognizable offence is made out and matter is civil in nature. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that IO had completed the investigation and totally reply upon the ATR of the IO. The IO in the matter has filed a partial Action Taken Report and he had not done an impartial investigation in the above said matter. IO had mentioned in his ATR that "copy of envelop/Speed Post sent vide registered post no. ED258407195IN sent to the complainant/ petitioner was also produced by the alleged persons which shows the correct address of the complainant/ petitioner Surender Pal Manaktala st R/o 21/68, 1 Floor, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi110026 with the Speed Post no.ED258407195IN". IO should asked the accused/ respondents to submit the original of the Speed Post and should have tried to find genuineness of the envelop. Further IO of the case had knowingly not tried to find out the record from the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi West Dn., New Delhi from Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.6 of pages 11 where the complainant/petitioner got the reply of his RTI application. The complainant/petitioner had filed the above said complaint and application U/s 200 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C on the basis of reply given by Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi West Dn., New Delhi and in the above said reply of RTI application, it has mentioned "As per report of the Post Master Punjabi Bagh, Post Office reason was incomplete address". It was further mentioned in the said reply that address mentioned on delivery slip was Mr. S. Pal Manka 21, Punjabi Bagh. The copy of delivery slip was also given alongwith the reply, wherein the address of the complainant/ petitioner was mentioned as Mr. S. Pal Manka, 21, Punjabi Bagh and remark "Adhura Pata ateh vapis". It is pertinent to mention here that a Government Office can not deny from their reply once they have given for an RTI application and it is a Government record. It is unfortunate that IO had given more importance to the reply of accused/respondents then the reply of RTI application given by the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi West Dn., New Delhi. Further the concerned postman is the most crucial witness/person in this case and a sample of his writing and signature should be matched from the remark and signature on the alleged envelop but unfortunately the IO had not asked or call the concerned postman. Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the accused/respondents had intentionally and with full planning forged the official documents of the above said post office. The respondents had planned all this with the intention that the petitioner could not receive Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.7 of pages 11 the above said show cause notice and at the same time they can prove that the petitioner had refused to receive the above said show cause notice and on the basis of forged refusal of the petitioner they can expel the petitioner from the preliminary membership and Sabhasad of Arya Samaj, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi.
5. Having heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist, carefully perusing the entire record placed before me and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion, the instant revision petition is liable to fail as it has been failed to point out any illegality or patent error in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court.
It has been held in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs State of Gujrat, II (2010) SLT 585, as under : "The power to direct an investigation to the police authorities is available to the Magistrate both under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and under Section 202, Cr.P.C. The only difference is stage at which the said powers may be invoked. As indicated hereinbefore, the power under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. to direct an investigation by the police authorities is at the precognizance stage while the power to direct a similar investigation under Section 202 is at the postcognizance stage. The learned Magistrate has chosen to adopt the latter course and has treated the protest petition filed by the Appellant as a complaint under Section 200 of the Code and has thereafter proceeded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and kept the matter with himself for an inquiry in the facts of the case.
Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.8 of pages 11 There is nothing irregular in the manner in which the learned Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of Subsection (2) of Section 202 the learned Magistrate deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 or proceed in therms of Section 193 and commit the case to the Court of Session."
It is settled law that a Magistrate before whom a complaint is filed has the discretionary authority to either refer it to police for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or take cognizance of the offence and examine complainant and his/her witnesses on oath, as provided under section 200 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, Ld. Magistrate has opted to adopt the second course and directed the complainant to lead her evidence. Even otherwise, Ld. Trial Court has passed a very reasoned order considering all the aspects of the case. Further The complainant/ revisionist had filed the above said complaint and application U/s 200 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C on the basis of reply given by Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi West Dn., New Delhi thereby informing the complainant that since the address was incorrect, so the show cause notice issued to the complainant by the accused persons returned back and in order to establish the said fact, the complainant could very well depose in this regard before the court by leading his evidence and calling the relevant witness/es from the concerned department i.e. Postman, handwriting expert etc. and also from the court of Ld. Civil Judge concerned and it can not be said that the evidence is not within the reach of complainant.
Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.9 of pages 11
6. Thus, it was not at all a case where the police assistance was required for solving the case or discovering the evidence which the revisionist/complainant could not have collected of his own. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has rightly declined the request of the revisionist to issue directions to police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C ought to be exercised where allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of the revisionist.
7. For the above said reasons, I hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by trial court. The criminal revision petition has no merit. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
8. TCR alongwith the copy of judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
9. Revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 28.09.2015 for leading of his pre summoning evidence.
10. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in open Court (RAKESH KUMAR1)
on 28th August, 2015) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (NDPS) (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.10 of pages 11
CR No.2/2015
Suredner Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya etc.
20.08.2015
Present: Revisionist in person with counsel.
Clarifications sought.
Put up on 28.08.2015 for orders.
(RAKESH KUMAR1)
Additional Sessions Judge
Special Judge (NDPS)
(West) Delhi/20.08.2015
28.08.2015
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, revision petition of the revisionist stands disposed off.
TCR alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court immediately for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
Revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 28.09.2015 for leading of his pre summoning evidence.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR1) Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge (NDPS) (West) Delhi/28.08.2015 Surender Manaktala Vs. Satyanand Arya & Ors. (CR No.2/2015) Page No.11 of pages 11