Delhi District Court
Mustakim S/O Mohd. Sadiq vs State on 3 July, 2013
In the court of Additional Sessions Judge03 (NE), Room no.
53, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Cr. Revision no. 11/13
PS Sonia Vihar
Date of filing : 31.01.2013
Date of Institution : 01.02.2013
Decision reserved on : 02.07.2013
Date of decision : 03.07.2013
Mustakim s/o Mohd. Sadiq
R/o 40/1, Main Pusta Road,
Tisra Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi110094.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State, N.C.T. of Delhi
2. Kailash Chand s/o Sh. Khem Chand,
R/o 148, Katra Mashroom,
Dariba Kalan, Delhi11006.
3. Mohd. Faizal
R/o 1329, Ganj Meer Khan,
New Delhi110002.
4. Haji Mohd. Arafin
R/o 1283, Mohalla Raqab Ganj,
Delhi.
Cr. R. no. 11/13 1/8
5. Mohd. Gulfan
R/o 1117, Gali Talian,
Ganj Meer Khan Raqab Ganj,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT: 1.1 (Introduction) The record of revision petition and the complaint are voluminous, it requires compilation of scattered facts together at one place so that clear picture may be portrait.
1.2 One namely Kailash Chand (respondent No.1) had purchased property measuring 1 bigha 5 biswas of khasra No.47, by agreement to sell dated 22.5.1996 and land of 750 sq. yards in khasra No.37 on the same day from its owner. As appears with regard to an FIR No. 72/2011, PS Sonia Vihar, the said Kailash Chand had constructed the factory on the said property, he employed his brother in law Madhusudan who was looking after the management of factory and the said Madhusudan also brought Mustikim (complainant herein) in the said property. The said Kailash Chand had sold the said property to Mohd. Faisal, Hazi Cr. R. no. 11/13 2/8 Mohd. Arafin and Mohd. Gulfam (author of FIR No.72/2011) and he had asked Madhusudan to vacate the property. They failed to vacate the property but laid a claim in respect of said property, that is why FIR was lodged by Mohd. Faisal, Hazi Mohd. Arafin and Mohd. Gulfam. 1.3 Whereas complainant Mustaqim has counter allegation that he had purchased the property against consideration from Ajay Pal, an attorney of Mohd. Usman and previous chain of documents were handed over by Kailash Chand to Mohd. Usman. There was also civil litigation between Mohd. Usman and Ajay Pal. To say the complainant Mustaqim had purchased the property and all kind of documents of previous chain were also given but Kailash Chand has sold the property to other respondents No.2,3 and 4 by manipulating the record. Further false FIR had been registered and complainant was given protection by the court.
2.1 (Plea of petitioner in complaint and revision petition) The petitioner gives detail of such facts compiled in paragraph 1 above, in his complaint accompanying an Cr. R. no. 11/13 3/8 application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct the police of Sonia Vihar to register an FIR against respondents No. 1 to 4 for offences u/s 420 / 467 /468 /469 /471 /477 /506 /205 /211 / 193 / 194 / 195 / 196 / 197 / 198 / 199 / 388 / 389 and 120B IPC. The court of Sh. R.L. Meena, Metropolitan Magistrate, had called status report, which was furnished by Inspector Lalit Joshi on 08.1.2012, by reporting that matter is still under investigation and Sh. Kailash Chand had sold the property twice and documents are being verified from the agencies. In the other report dated 8.6.2012, similar facts have been narrated and further information was given that papers are being verified in respect of property purchased by complainant but Kailash Chand is not traceable. However, by order dated 5.1.2013, the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, KKD Courts, Delhi instead of deciding the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., referred and relied upon section 210 (1) Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion to keep the complaint pending awaiting the police report in respect of FIR No.72/2011, since the subject matter is same.
Cr. R. no. 11/13 4/8 2.2 The petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the impugned order and he assails the same that neither section 210 Cr.P.C. applies in the situation in hand, particularly the respondents No.1,2,3 and 4 have committed forgery, manipulation, cheating and alike offences, which require investigation and that is why application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed which ought to have been allowed by the trial court. Keeping the application pending or no directions for investigation, amounts to keep the things in abeyance as investigation with regard to petitioner's allegation have not been considered, but the allegations requires an independent investigation by registering an FIR against the respondents no. 1 to 4. Whereas Ld. Magistrate had no option but to decide the application for directions for investigation against respondents No.1 to 4, the petitioner relies upon Radha Vs State, 179 (2011) DLT 810, that when commission of cognizable offence is brought to the information of police officer, he is bound to register an FIR. Thus, impugned order is liable to set aside. 2.3 During the course of arguments while referring and Cr. R. no. 11/13 5/8 relying upon the record as well as the grounds of revision petition, precisely reflected in aforementioned paras, the petitioner requests that he is in possession of property, documents were also handed over to him when the property was purchased and there was a civil suit between Mohd Usman and Ajay Pal, the said Kailash Chand had filed an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him party to suit for mandatory injunction but his application was dismissed, it has not been challenged in the form of appeal or otherwise, it attained finality, therefore, Kailash Chand has no right or interest in the property. The trial court failed to appreciate all the aspects that it was requiring an investigation, a separate FIR was to be registered and provisions of section 210 Cr PC are not attracted, therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality or it is liable to be set aside.
2.4 (Plea of State) Whereas Sh. R. K. Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for the State opposed the revision petition, while relying upon the reasons given in the impugned order that since complaint has been kept pending awaiting outcome of the Cr. R. no. 11/13 6/8 FIR no. 72/11 since documents of both the parties are under scrutiny and investigation, section 210 Cr PC is attracted and there is no infirmity or flaw or illegality warranting to set aside the impugned order. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. (Findings) - The contentions are assessed, in the light of statutory provisions of section 210 Cr PC as well as the material on record, inclusive of trial court record, its finding and reports of the investigating officer. For the following reasons it is held that there is illegality or flaw to perverse the findings given by the trial court and revision petition is dismissed :
(i) There is same property but rival claims based on different documents but all are subject matter of under investigation under the banner of FIR no. 72/11 PS Seemapuri ; to say either author of the FIR or the present complainant have handed over their respective documents to the investigating officer who are verifying and investigating the same.
(ii) The complainant has a perception that the FIR no. Cr. R. no. 11/13 7/8 72/11 was registered by its author namely Mohd. Faisal, Hazi Mohd. Arafin and Mohd. Gulfam and case of complainant cannot be investigated with the report of author of FIRs. The reasons are misconstrued, since registration of FIR means to put the State machinery into action and there is no bar for the police to carry investigation, whenever certain facts came to the information of police during investigation. The police is already having papers of author of the FIR as well as papers of the present complaint. Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed off. Revision file be consigned to record room. A copy of this Judgment be sent to trial court along with trial court record. Announced in open court (Inder Jeet Singh) Asadha 12, SAKA 1935 Additional Sessions Judge03 (NE District), Room No.53, IInd Floor, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
03.07.2013 Cr. R. no. 11/13 8/8