Delhi District Court
G.S.Rawat vs . State on 30 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ATUL KUMAR GARG: ASJ-03:CENTRAL
HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CR No. 31/14
G.S.Rawat Vs. State
30.08.2014
This revision petition assigned to this court by the Ld.
District and Sessions Judge. Let it be checked and registered.
Present: Revisionist in person alongwith Counsel.
ORDER
1. Revisionist has preferred the revision petition assailing the order dated 28.7.2014 passed by ld. MM in the case titled as G.S.Rawat Vs. K.D.Khera and others whereby Ld. MM has denied his prayer for supplying of police report alongwith documents so that he may prepare his protest petition against final report submitted by the Police on his complaint. Not only this, Ld. MM has also imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- which is to be CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 1 deposited in the DLSA. He has submitted that order passed by Ld. MM is contrary to the law and fact of the case and is liable to be set aside. Order dated 28.7.2014 is casual and prefunctory in nature and has been passed without due application of mind. He submits that it is clear mandate in favour of petitioner as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police AIR 1985 SC 1285 (1). He submits that order be set aside and ld. MM has ordered to supply him the copy of the final report as well as annexurs so that he may oppose the final report submitted by the police on his complaint stating that no case is made out.
2. Upon filing of this revision petition, this court has summoned the Trial Court Record. As per the trial court record, the police has filed the final report/ closure report stating that the allegations are baseless on the complaint of the complainant. Earlier on the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC, the court CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 2 has ordered for registration of FIR on the complaint of the complainant. Police after lengthy investigation has filed the closure report. On 06.06.2014 complainant was directed to go through the file and take appropriate steps in this regard. On 28.6.2014 complainant has insisted that the copy of the police report and documents annexed be supplied to him in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police. His prayer was declined.
3. Against the impugned order, present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist stating that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order contravening the law laid down in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police (supra.). He has submitted in the judgment, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that law requires, the copies must have been supplied to the complainant so as to enable to know about the outcome. Here, the Ld. Magistrate has not supplied the copy of the final CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 3 report alongwith the documents annexed thereto which is in violation of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and is liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard the revisionists as well as Ld. Addl. PP.
Section 154 CrPC casts the duty upon the State to provide a copy of information of cognizable office free of costs to the informant/complainant. Section 157 CrPC casts the duty upon the SHO of PS to submit the report to the Ld. Magistrate giving reason and shall notify to the informant the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated. Sub-section 2 of Section 173 CrPC provides that as soon as the investigation completed, the Officer Incharge of the PS shall forward to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on police report. Sub-Section 2 (ii) of Section 173 CrPC stated that the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed the the State Government, the action by him to the person, if any,by CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 4 whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was given. Under Section 173 CrPC after registration of the case, SHO of PS is duty bound to file the charge sheet or final report closing the case of the complainant. While filing of the report under Section 173 CrPC, police has the option either to file the charge sheet or to file the final report closing the case. Further in the closure report, police has mentioned whether he has sufficient evidence to proceed or the allegations are found baseless or he has chosen the course of prosecuting the complainant under Section 182 IPC. Here in the present case, police has filed the final report claiming that the allegations of the complainant are baseless.
5. In such scenario, the complainant has right to file the protest petition or contest the plea of the state/police. Reason for providing the information out the out come is that the informant who sets that the machinery of investigation into motion by filing CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 5 the first information report must know what is the result of the investigation initiated on the basis of the first information report. Without providing the copy of the final report, he is not in position as to why the police has come to the conclusion to close the case. Therefore, the court must provide the copy of the final report so that complainant would know the out come of the investigation carried out on his complaint. Therefore, Magistrate is bound down to provide the copy of the final report to the complainant so as to enable him to know or contest the claim of the police. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. MM is set aside to the extent that he is not under obligation to provide the copy of the final report. Further, cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the revisionist is waived off. Ld. MM is directed to provide the copy and give atleast two weeks time to the complainant so as to enable him to contest the claim of the police. Hence, revision petition is allowed (without giving any notice to the CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 6 respondent ). TCR alongwith the copy of this order is also sent backs to the trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On 30th August, 2014 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi. CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 7 CR No. 86/13 Mukesh & Ors Vs. Mahesh & Ors 12.8.2014 Present: Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in the open court, revision petition is allowed. The order dated 05.07.2014 passed by Ld. ACMM is set aside. SHO of PS Paharganj is directed to register the case under relevant section and report to this court about the registration of FIR by 19th of this month. TCR is sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Revision file is consigned to record room.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi.
12.08.2014 CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 8 IN THE COURT OF ATUL KUMAR GARG: ASJ-03:CENTRAL HAZARI COURTS : DELHI CR No. 32/14 Sh. Sudhanshu Kumar Sultania S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Prasad Sultania R/o H. NO. 173 A, Flat No. 1 A, Kh. No. 276/175, Near Fire Brigade Workshop, Gali No. 1A, Wazirabad Village, PS Timarpur, Delhi-110054.
... Revisionist Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi )
2. Smt. Dattatreys Panchal @ Madhu Panchal W/o Sudhanshu Kumar Sultania D/o Sh. Dattatreya Mahadev Panchal R/o Illegal detention and C/o Sh. Ashish Aggarwal at Gangaur Saree Store, Old Ban Road, Warisaliganj, Distt. Nawada, Bihar, PS Warisaliganj, Pin-805130. ...Respondents Date of institution : 30.08.2014 Date of arguments : 30.08.2014 Date of Judgment : 30.08.2014 CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 9 CR No. 31/14 G.S.Rawat Vs. State Page No. 10