Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Babu Dvivedy vs State on 23 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 272/2022
CNR No. DLNW01-009776-2022
Sh. Raj Babu Dvivedy
S/o Sh. B.P. Dvivedy
R/o H. No. 67, Akash Vihar
Ranhola, Opp. Kali Mandir
Nangloi, Nilothi, Delhi-110041
.....Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Miss Devika Saini
D/o Sh. Dinesh Saini
3. Sh. Dinesh Saini
S/o Sh. Lahorimal Saini
4. Smt. Seema Saini
W/o Sh. Dinesh Saini
All r/o 16/9, West Patel Nagar
New Delhi
5. Tehsildar
Patel Nagar, Delhi
O/O D.M. (West)
.....Respondents
Date of Filing : 24.09.2022
Date of Arguments : 15.11.2022
Date of Order : 23.11.2022
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this criminal revision under Section 399 of Cr.PC against an order dated 12.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM-04, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the Cr. Rev. No. 272/2022 Raj Babu Dvivedy V. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 6 complaint case bearing Ct. Case No. 18142/2016 titled 'Raj Babu Dvivedy V. Devika Saini' filed u/s 200 CrPC along with application u/s 156(3) CrPC by the complainant-therein / revisionist-herein against the respondents-herein/accused- therein was dismissed in default for non-prosecution as well as non-appearance. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on the grounds among others that due to bona fide human error, the counsel for the revisionist wrongly noted the date of hearing and could not inform the revisionist the date of hearing. The revisionist himself inquired about the status of his case then he came to know that his case was dismissed in default for non- prosecution on 12.05.2022. His counsel immediately applied for certified copy of complete case file along with the last order on 01.06.2022 and received the certified copy on 18.08.2022. Counsel for the revisionist remained present himself along with revisionist before the court of Ld. MM on each and every date either in person or through VC. Non-appearance of the revisionist as well as his counsel is neither intentional nor deliberate. The revisionist in the present revision petition has undertaken that he shall punctually present himself on future dates of hearings. The revisionist has prayed to set aside the impugned order dt. 12.05.2022.
2. The respondent No.1/State and respondent No.5/Tehsildar are the formal parties. However, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed reply to the present revision petition and raised the preliminary objections that the revision petition is filed after the statutory limitation period of 90 days from the date of order dt.12.05.2022. The Cr. Rev. No. 272/2022 Raj Babu Dvivedy V. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 6 revisionist/complainant has no locus to file the complaint in the first place, and subsequently the present revision. The status report filed by the State has concluded the document to be valid, authentic and free from any discrepancies. In parawise reply to the petition, the respondents have stated that no single evidence has been attached with the present revision in support of the averments for delay as pleaded by the revisionist-herein. There have been multiple occasions when the revisionist-herein or his counsel has remained absent for the hearings before the Ld. MM. The deliberate absence and seeking multiple adjournments from time to time is proof of the pattern of the revisionist/complainant to delay the proceedings in the case. In their reply, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have referred the judgments in the cases of Madhulika Tripathi V. Logix Corporate Solution (P) Ltd. [Revision Petition No. 207 of 2018] and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande V. Cen. Information Comr. & Ors. of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and I have also perused the impugned order dt.12.05.2022 as well as materials on record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that non-
appearance of the revisionist and his counsel on 12.05.2022 was neither intentional nor deliberate but it was due to noting down a wrong date of hearing. The complainant / revisionist may be given an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. MM concerned. After knowing the status of the case, certified copies were applied on 01.06.2022 and the same were received on 18.08.2022. It is the mistake of the previous counsel. The Cr. Rev. No. 272/2022 Raj Babu Dvivedy V. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 6 revisionist is ready and undertake that he will appear on each date of hearing before the Ld. MM concerned. If the complaint case is not restored, the complainant / revisionist would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The present revision is maintainable.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 argued that no copy of diary is mentioned or filed. How ITRs of the respondent were obtained by the revisionist is not explained by him. A complaint for registration of FIR has already been filed against the revisionist for unlawfully obtaining the ITRs of the respondent. The impugned order was passed on 12.05.2022 and the present revision petition was filed on 24.09.2022. The present revision petition has been filed beyond the limitation period of 90 days and is time barred. The revisionist has no locus standi to file the complaint u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Ld. MM and subsequently the revision petition before this court. The revisionist has not explained as to why he is agitating the issue after a long time and how the revisionist is aggrieved by the alleged acts of the respondent. No document is placed before this court in support of the averment for delay as pleaded in the revision petition. On multiple dates, the revisionist and his counsel sought adjournments, which also show that revisionist is not interested to pursue his case. This revision is filed only to harass the respondent.
6. In view of the reasons mentioned in the revision petition, facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint case u/s 200 CrPC along with application u/s 156(3) Cr. Rev. No. 272/2022 Raj Babu Dvivedy V. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 6 CrPC was instituted on 22.04.2016 and the case was still at the stage of arguments till the passing of the impugned order dt.12.05.2022. In his complaint u/s 200 CrPC, the complainant has alleged that accused No.1-therein/Devika Saini in connivance with her parents and officials of Patel Nagar, Tehsil has succeeded to obtain a forged, false and fabricated non-
creamy layer OBC Certificate No.
OBC/03/32/13741/22/7/2010/8911035988 dt.07.09.2010
issued by Tehsildar, Patel Nagar, Rampura, Delhi. On the basis of said forged and fake certificate, accused No.1 got admission in S.R.C. College at Delhi University and misused the certificate for her admission, therefore, other candidate suffered and not admitted at S.R.C. College. The revisionist- herein/complainant-therein in his said complaint u/s 200 CrPC has not mentioned as to how he was suffered or is aggrieved person due to obtaining of alleged non-creamy layer OBC Certificate by the respondent/Devika Saini. Vide order dt. 01.06.2019 of the Ld. MM concerned, ASI Raj Kumar filed Status Report as per which the OBC certificate of Devika was found to be genuine upon which the complaint of complainant was filed. The revisionist has failed to show his locus standi. The accused-therein/respondent-herein has not been summoned but accused along with his counsel appeared before the Ld. MM concerned and even the impugned order dt.12.05.2022 was passed in the presence of accused and his counsel. After institution of the said complaint case on 22.04.2016, part arguments were heard on 26.08.2019 and thereafter the matter was kept pending for arguments but the revisionist/complainant could not complete the arguments before the Ld. MM. The revisionist has also not filed copy of case diary of his counsel Cr. Rev. No. 272/2022 Raj Babu Dvivedy V. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 6 regarding wrong noting of date of hearing as pleaded in this revision petition. Therefore, the case of the revisionist is without any basis and also devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order to Ld. Trial Court. Revision petition file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by
YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2022.11.23
18:16:36 +0530
Announced in the open court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
today on 23rd November 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi Cr. Rev. No. 272/2022 Raj Babu Dvivedy V. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 6