Delhi District Court
Swaran Lata Malhotra vs Balbir Singh on 15 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010083792024
CRL. REVISION No. 474/2024
SWARAN LATA MALHOTRA
W/O LATE SH. C.P. MALHOTRA
R/O A-285, GROUND FLOOR,
DOUBLE STOREY, KAKAJI,
NEW DELHI-110019
....Revisionist
VERSUS
1. BALBIR SINGH
SHO, PS KALKAJI
NEW DELHI-110019
2. RITIKA
W/SI, PS KALKAJI
NEW DELHI-110019
.....Respondents
LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 1 of 10
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date: 2025.02.15
16:22:13 +0530
Date of institution : 20.08.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 15.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition U/s 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure against impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-06/South East/Saket Courts, in Ct. Case No. 938/2023 titled as Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs Balbir Singh. The said complaint was moved by the revisionist under section 200 CrPC alleaging commission of offences punishable under Section 166 A/166/182/187/193/217/218/219/221/222 IPC by the respondents, both of whom are police officers. Vide the impugned order, Ld. Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the revisionist under section 156 (3) CrPC and to direct the consignment of the file to record room. For the sake of convenience, the revisionist herein shall be referred to as 'complainant'.
GROUNDS OF REVISION
2. The grounds cited by the revisionists are as under:
A) Because, the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is bad in law and contrary to facts and circumstances of the case.
LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 2 of 10 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.02.15 16:22:17 +0530 B) Because, the impugned order containing perverse finding as the Ld. Trial Court without issuing notice to concerned SHO for filing status report and also without taking cognisance of the Complaint dismissed the whole complaint along with Application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
C) Because, the Ld. Trail Court wrongly believed upon the false, frivolous and concocted ATR dated 10.08.2023 filed in the Hon'ble Court on 11.08.2023 and dismissed the complaint itself which is against the law and statute.
D) Because, the Ld. Trail without following the procedure of Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C dismissed the whole complaint and consigned the file to record room.
E) Because, the Ld. Trail Court has not appreciated the fact that the allegations against the Respondents are U/s166/166-A/182/187/193/217/218/219/221/222IPC which are cognizable offences. Hence the SHO was duty bound to lodge FIR against the Respondents (Respondent No.1&2).
F) Because, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 3 of 10 2025.02.15 16:22:21 +0530 judgments and also in the matter of 'Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P and Ors.' held that "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".
G) Because, the Ld. MM did not give opportunity to the Complaint to lead her pre-summoning evidence and Ld. MM had not done any enquiry and summarily dismissed the complaint of the Complainant.
H) Because, before the passing of the impugned order, the Ld. Trail Court did not examine the complainant and her witnesses upon oath and dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant and consigned the file to record room.
I) Because, the Ld. MM did not comply the statutory requirement of Section 200 Cr.P.C before dismissing the complaint of the Complainant.
J) Because, Ld. MM without understanding the case of the Complainant wrongly and hastily dismissed the same and consigned the file to record room.
LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 4 of 10 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.02.15 16:22:24 +0530 K) Because, the impugned order is based on guess and surmise of the Ld. MM and not on the correct fact or evidence of any person. As the Ld. MM readily accepted the version and report of the Police which was without any oath and the same was filed in another complaint cases.
L) It is submitted that the complete investigation is required in order to know the truth of the present case. Thus, the application U/s 156(3) and complaint cannot be dismissed summarily. The Petitioners cannot on their own collect all the evidences and the police assistance is required in order to prove his case.
M) Because, the Ld. MM has not applied his mind before dismissing of the aforesaid Complaint and application and mechanically and casually dismissed the same in routine manner.
N) Because, the Ld. MM has committed a serious error of law by dismissing the Complaint and application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
O) Because, bare perusal of Order dated 29.05.2024 LOVLEEN Digitally signed Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 5 of 10 by LOVLEEN Date:
2025.02.15 16:22:27 +0530 radiates non application of judicial mind by the Ld. MM and said Order is liable to be set aside.
3. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS
4. Respondents did not bother to contest the present petition.
DISCUSSION
5. This court has considered the rival contentions. Records have also been considered.
6. The entire law regarding exercise of jurisdiction U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate has been elaborated recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Alok Kumar Vs. Harsh Mander 2023 SSC Online Del 4219. At Para 40, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"To summarise, a conspectus of the above-mentioned judicial precedents reveal the following :
(i). Power under Section 156(3) Cr. PC necessitates application of judicial mind.
(ii) Such power is to be exercised in a judicious manner, and cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily.
(iii) Magistrates cannot direct registration of FIR on LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 6 of 10 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.02.15 16:22:31 +0530 mere asking of complainant."
7. It is apparent from the above that a Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind while disposing of a prayer U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that directions for registration of an FIR could not be passed in an arbitrary or mechanical manner.
8. It would be appropriate to narrate the facts / allegations in brief in order to understand whether the impugned order passed by the Ld. Magistrate passes the test laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Alok Kumar Vs. Harsh Mander 2023 SSC Online Del 4219.
Brief Facts
9. As per TCR, the complainant alleges that Pratish Pathak, Bhavya Khanna, Vinay Kumar Gulati, Madan Jain and Pradeep had committed various cognizable offences against her at different points of time. Complainant gave written complaints against the said persons to the police. However, no FIR was registered against the said persons. Consequently, the complainant approached the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and filed two complaint cases accompanied by applications under section 156 (3) CrPC. The said cases are Ct. Case No. 245/2022 and Ct. Case No. 310/2022. The Ld. Magistrate concerned sought ATRs from police in respect of the said applications moved under Section 156(3) CrPC in the said two cases. LOVLEEN At that time, respondent no. 1 herein, namely Balbir Singh, being the Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 7 of 10 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.02.15 16:22:35 +0530 SHO PS Kalkaji had appointed respondent no. 2 herein, namely WSI Ritika, to inquire in the said two cases. Respondent no. 2 herein visited the residence of the complainant and she was narrated all the facts. After conducting Enquiry respondent no. 2 herein prepared a common status report/ ATR in respect of the two said cases and filed the same in the Court of Ld. Magistrate concerned. The Ld. Magistrate, after considering the said Status Report/ ATR was pleased to dismiss the applications moved under Section 156 (3) CrPC in the said two cases. In the present case, the complainant claims that the said Status Report/ ATR filed by respondent no. 2 herein ( in the said two cases) was bearing incorrect facts and that the same was prepared in order to save the said persons (named in the beginning of this paragraph). Complainant further claims that respondent no. 2 herein intentionally excluded the material allegations and evidences produced before her during the course of enquiry from the said Status Report/ ATR. Hence, the present complaint against the respondents under section 166 A/166/182/187/193/217/218/219/221/222 IPC.
10. It is apparent from the above facts that the complainant alleges misconduct and wrong doing on the part of respondent no. 2 herein while she was discharging her official duty, being the Enquiry Officer designated to file the Status Report/ ATR in said two cases previously filed by the complainant against Pratish Pathak, Bhavya Khanna, Vinay Kumar Gulati, Madan Jain and Pradeep. The complainant LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 8 of 10 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.02.15 16:22:39 +0530 claims that respondent no. 2 herein prepared a false Status Report and filed the same in the Court of Ld. Magistrate concerned dealing with the said two cases. Complainant seeks directions under Section 156(3) CrPC for a formal investigation in respect of the said allegations. Here it would be appropriate to cite the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UP VS PARASNATH SINGH MANU/SC/0973/2009 AND ANIL KUMAR & ORS VS M.K. AIYAPPA MANU/SC/1002/2013. It has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said cases that in the absence of a previous 'sanction', a Magistrate could not order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. The above position of law and the admitted absence of any 'sanction' to prosecute the respondents herein legally prevented the Ld. Magistrate to pass any directions under Section 156 (3) CrPC for a formal investigation in respect of the allegations levelled by complainant herein against the respondents.
11. Admittedly, in the absence of any 'sanction', the Ld. Magistrate could not have taken the cognizance of the case under section 190 (1)
(a) CrPC either. Consequently, the Ld. Magistrate was required by law to close the matter at that very juncture. As such, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the decision of the Ld. Magistrate when he directed the Judicial file to be consigned to record room.
LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 9 of 10 Date: 2025.02.15 16:22:46 +0530
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition is dismissed.
13. TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgement.
14. This revision file be consigned to Record Room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2025.02.15
Dictated and Announced 16:22:52 +0530
in open Court on 15.02.2025 (Lovleen)
ASJ-03 (South East),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Crl. Revision No:474/2024 Swaran Lata Malhotra Vs. Balbir & Ors page no. 10 of 10