Delhi District Court
Sukrat Bajaj vs State on 22 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
CR. Rev No. 45/2022
CNR No. : DLST01-001079-2022
1. Sh. Sukrat Bajaj
S/o Late Harinder Kumar Bajaj,
R/o C-26, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 ....... REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
2. Sh. J. P. Singh
Officer at Basement/ L. G. F. of D-10.
Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016
3. Mr. Gurmeet Singh
Office at basement/ LGF of D-10,
Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016
4. Mr. Vinod Kumar
126-127, Masjid Modh,
South Extn-II,
New Delhi-110049
5. Mr. Vipin Kumar
126-127, Masjid Modh,
South Extn-II,
New Delhi-110049
6. Mr. Pritpal Singh
PURSHOTTAM E-9, Hauz Khas,
PATHAK New Delhi-110016
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 1 of 13
Date: 2024.08.22
06:18:42 +0530
7. Ms. Richa Sandilya
Office at Basement/ LGF of D-10.
Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016 ....... RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.02.2022
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 20.05.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant petition, revisionist take exception to an order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Ld. MM, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in case bearing CT no. 47227/2019, titled as 'Sukrat Bajaj Vs. J. P. Singh and Ors.' whereby Ld. Magistrate has dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for registration of FIR against the accused persons.
2. The factual position has been noted by the Ld. Trial Court in following manner:-
"An application under section 156 (3) CrPC came to be filed by complainant alleging that in the year 2016 complainant hired advocate Mr. J. P. Singh (alleged person) having his office at the basement / L.G.F. of D-10, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016. It is further stated that alleged persons Vipin Kumar and Vinod Kumar have cheated the complainant and FIR No. 273/2014 u/s 420/120B/406/467/468/471 IPC has already been registered at PS Malviya Nagar. It is further stated that the alleged person did not argue the bail application properly and neither site judgments in the Court nor oppose the bail applications of alleged person namely Vipin Kumar in the Digitally signed by aforesaid FIR and Hon'ble Court granted bail to aforesaid alleged person on PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK 14.10.2017. It is further stated that complainant had given three blank signed PATHAK Date:
2024.08.22 06:18:49 papers to the alleged person at the time of filing anticipatory bail application +0530 Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 2 of 13 of complainant in FIR No.397/2014 PS CR Park. Further alleged person filed the bail application dated 11.09.2017 where bail was granted. It is further stated that alleged person did not return the three blank signed papers despite repeated requests and there is apprehension/ suspicion that alleged person might misuse the same in future."
3. On these allegations revisionist sought registration of FIR against respondent no. 2 to 7. Status report was filed by the concerned inquiry officer PS Ambedkar Nagar, wherein it is mentioned that :-
"An inquiry was conducted on the allegations of complainant. During inquiry, statement of J.P. Singh was recorded and also an inquiry was made from the complainant regarding the misuse of blank documents, to which complainant stated that he has apprehension that the said documents may be misused in future. The complainant failed to provide anything to show that he had ever given any blank document to the alleged person. Moreover, the issue pertains to 138 NI Act case and the matter has been settled by the parties. Hence, the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence and matter is civil in nature."
4. Ld Magistrate after considering the status report and hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order, placing reliance on M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State 2002 CRI. L.J.NOC 333(Delhi) and Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and others 2002 CRI. L.J. 2907 )inter-alia with following relevant observations :-
"In the present case also there is no justification for directing the police for registering the FIR, request u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is declined, as all the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant Digitally including identity of the alleged persons and documentary evidence, as well PURSHOTTAM as the names and addresses of the concerned witnesses. Thus, there is no signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
ground on which the assistance of the police is required. Further, if at any 2024.08.22 06:18:53 stage the court is of the opinion that investigation in the matter is required, +0530 Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 3 of 13 the court will be within its power to order investigation u/s 202 of Cr.PC, and this order shall in no way bar such investigation at latter stage. "
5. The revisionist being aggrieved with the said order of the Ld. Magistrate has assailed the same by instant petition on following grounds:-
i. that the impugned order is bad in law and facts and suffers from manifest illegality, being passed without considering the various laws established by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii. Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the accused persons Vipin Kumar and Vinod Kumar have cheated the complainant and the respondent no. 2 who was the counsel of the complainant did not oppose the bail of accused persons.
iii. Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that there are three blank papers signed by the complainant which are in possession of the respondent no. 2, which can be misused by him.
iv. Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the petitioner is in knowledge and in possession of all evidence pertaining to the present criminal offence and therefore police investigation is not required.
Digitally v. Ld. Trial court erred in passing the order without signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: considering the role and involvement of other accused persons 2024.08.22 06:18:59 +0530 namely Mr. Vipin Kumar's friend, Mr. Tyagi who handed over Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 4 of 13 the bribe money to respondent no. 2 and his associates such as Mr. Richa Sandilya and Mr. Gurmeet Singh.
vi. Ld. Trial Court erred in passing the order without considering the fact that the respondent no. 2 has cheated many other people and several FIRs have been registered against him.
vii. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the facts leading to the complaint are within the knowledge of the complainant and the complainant would be in a better position to prove his allegations.
viii. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the offence committed by the accused persons are cognizable in nature and also did not appreciate the law laid down in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1.
ix. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence involved while not registering an FIR against the accused persons which is in contravention of the principal of law, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
Digitally
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK has argued that there is need for police investigation for recovery PATHAK Date:
2024.08.22 06:19:05 +0530 of the documents which the complainant handed over to the Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 5 of 13 respondent no. 2. He also argued that the offences alleged against the accused are serious as they have committed the offences u/s 378/405/406/418/420/120B IPC. He argued that the police investigation is also required to unearth the conspiracy between the respondents. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon judgment: Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020, Suzuki Parasrampuria suitings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors arising out of SLP © No. 12073 of 2017 and Premlata @ Sunita Vs. Naseem Bee & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 585.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and Ld. Magistrate, for the right reasons, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, declined for registration of FIR. It was argued that instant petition is nothing but a mischievous attempt to aggravate the harassment of respondents. It was further argued that revisionist has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It was argued that the present case does not require any field investigation or custodial interrogation. He argued that the complaint dated 21.12.2017 given to the SHO, Malviya Nagar, do not disclose any cognizable offence. He submitted that Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM the whole dispute between the parties is in regard to the non-
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2024.08.22
06:19:10
payment of the fees of respondent no. 2. It was further submitted +0530 that the present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 6 of 13 the same is liable to be dismissed. On the strength of these arguments, respondents sought dismissal of instant revision petition. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon judgments i.e. Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State 2002 CRI. L.J.NOC 333(Delhi), Sapna Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. Dated 22nd April 2024, Pooja Taneja Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2017 (236) DLT 1, Anjuri Kumari Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. W.P.(CRL) 1210/2023. Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs. State of Gujarat 2010 (4) SCC 185, Aleque Padamsee and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490 (SC) and Alok Kumar Vs. Harsh Mander 2023 SCC Online Del 4219.
8. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.7 has argued that the respondent no. 7 has been falsely impleaded by the complainant and there is no allegations against the respondent no. 7 in any of the proceedings between the parties. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 7 has also relied upon judgment i.e. M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State 2002 CRI. L.J.NOC 333(Delhi) (Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by Court), Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State Of PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.08.22 Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 an Dehal Singh Vs. State of Himachal 06:19:15 +0530 Pradesh 2010 9 SCC 85.
9. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 7 of 1310. When a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is filed, the Jurisdictional Magistrate can issue directions to the police to investigate the case or he can take cognizance of the offence and after examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, he may summon the accused or he may dismiss the complaint. A direction for registration of FIR cannot be issued mechanically, without applying judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. In Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."
12. In Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"83.....In terms of the judgments of this Court, the Magistrate is required to examine, apply his judicious mind and then exercise discretion whether or Digitally signed by not to issue directions under Section 156(3) or whether he should take PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK cognizance and follow the procedure under Section 202. He can also direct a PATHAK Date:
2024.08.22 preliminary inquiry by the Police in terms of the law laid down by this Court 06:19:21 +0530 in Lalita Kumari (supra)."Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 8 of 13
13. Therefore, an exercise for issuance of direction for registration of FIR is not an empty formality. It is a serious exercise of judicial discretion. It must be exercised after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice. Such direction cannot be issued in a casual and mechanical manner.
14. Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence warranting complex and scientific investigation for collection of evidence.
15. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment titled as Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that:-
"Magistrates should act under Section 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusation".
Digitally
16. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. signed by Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.08.22 06:19:26 +0530 333(Delhi) that :-Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 9 of 13
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s 156. But cases, where Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such, declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified''.
17. Adverting, to the facts of the present case, the revisionist has claimed that he gave three blank signed documents to the respondent no. 2, which he had not returned back and there is apprehension that he may misuse it. However, only a mere apprehension that an offence may be committed by respondent no. 2 by misusing the alleged documents, cannot be a ground for registration of FIR. The revisionist has also claimed that police investigation is required to unearth the conspiracy between the respondents against him for commission of alleged offences u/s 378/405/406/418/420/120B IPC. If the complainant wants to establish his case, certainly he can examine himself regarding his claims and if there is any necessity to summon any record or any witness, he can apply to the trial court for the same. Further, the Digitally signed by magistrate can always exercise his power under section 202 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
CrPC.
2024.08.22 06:19:32 +0530 Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 10 of 13
18. In my considered view, once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this court, while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165 wherein it has been observed as under :
"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999 (2) SCC 452, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following:
"5......In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence....."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held Digitally that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere signed by PURSHOTTAM with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set 2024.08.22 06:19:38 +0530 Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 11 of 13 aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
19. After going through the order of Ld. Trial Court and complaint, I find that the learned trial court had observed that the petitioner / revisionist seems to be in possession of all the evidence and therefore, she can proceed with her complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Making such an observation and passing such an order was completely within the jurisdiction and power of Ld. CMM.
PURSHOTTAM
20. Ld. Counsel for the revsionist has also contended that the PATHAK Trial Court has wrongly applied the judgment of Lalita Kumari Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM (supra). It is correct that as per the judgment of Lalita Kumari PATHAK Date: 2024.08.22 06:19:42 +0530 (supra), if cognizable offence is disclosed, the Station House Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 12 of 13 Officer has to register an FIR. However, when it comes to jurisdiction to be exercised by the learned MM u/s 156(3) CrPC, it has been a well settled law that the jurisdiction is to be exercised by learned MM cautiously and by application of mind.
21. Even otherwise, the Ld. Trial Court was very cautious and judicious because while disposing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, it allowed the revisionist to proceed with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C and has clarified that resort can be made to Section 202 Cr.P.C for conducting investigation, if required.
22. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set aside, Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
23. The revision petition is disposed off.
24. TCR be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of the present judgment.
25. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2024.08.22 06:19:48 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) th 22 DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 13 signed pages) Cr Rev No. 45/2022 Sukrat Bajaj Vs. State Page 13 of 13