Delhi District Court
Maya Prakash Verma vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 24 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTT., KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Revision No. : 25/2014
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0142272014
In the matter of :-
MAYA PRAKASH VERMA
S/o Sh. Prem Raj
R/o A-40, Gali No. 1, Brijpuri,
Near Prem Medical Store, Delhi-110094. ..............Revisionist
VERSUS
1. THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
2. SMT. MINAKSHI VERMA
W/o Sh. Maya Prakash Verma
D/o Sh. Mohar Pal,
R/o E-74, Gali No. 3, E-Block,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093. ..........Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.05.2014
Date of reserving order : 22.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 24.07.2014
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of the Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397 Cr.PC, preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 11.12.2013, passed by Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CC No. 185/13, u/s 200 Cr.PC & 156(3) Cr.PC, titled as 'Smt. Minakshi Verma Vs. Maya Prakash', directing the SHO to register FIR u/s 494 IPC.
2. Notice was issued to the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) who Crl. Rev. No. 25/14, 1 of 3 Pages appeared alongwith Sh. M.I. Malik Advocate and filed reply to the revision petition.
3. TCR has been summoned. I have heard the arguments from Sh. V.K. Upadhyay Advocate for revisionist and from Sh. M.I. Malik Advocate for the complainant (revisionist No. 2 herein) as well as Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
4. On behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted by learned counsel that Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order without applying the principles of natural justice; that impugned order is illegal, irregular and incorrect and as per provision of section 154 Cr.PC, the FIR can be reduced to writing only relating to the commission of cognizable offence and in case of non-cognizable offence, no FIR can be registered; that Ld. Trial Court ignored the basic principle of law and failed to appreciate that section 494 IPC is non-cognizable offence; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate provision of section 156 Cr.PC which is applicable only in cognizable case; that Ld. Trial Court erred in directing the SHO to register the FIR in non-cognizable case and therefore, on the above grounds, it has been prayed on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned order be set-aside with direction to stop the consequent proceedings of case FIR No. 431/13, u/s 494 IPC, PS. M.S. Park.
Revision petition is also accompanied with an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the revision and in this regard, Ld. counsel for revisionist has relied on the authorities reported as "State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 752", and "State of Sikkim Vs. Raju Chettri & Anr., 2008 CRI. L. J. 3690".
5. On behalf of respondent No. 2, Ld. counsel has submitted that offence Crl. Rev. No. 25/14, 2 of 3 Pages u/s 420 IPC was also made out but Ld. Trial Court has not given any direction for registration of grave offence u/s 420 IPC which is cognizable offence and Ld. Trial Court has rightly directed for registration of FIR for offence u/s 494 IPC. He further prayed that SHO be directed to add section 420 IPC also.
6. Ld. Addl. PP, however, has submitted that in compliance of the impugned order, the FIR No. 431/2013, u/s 494 IPC has already been registered at PS M.S. Park. The present revision is not maintainable in the sessions court because the sessions court has no power to quash the FIR and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable and revisionist may move the appropriate petition before the competent court.
7. I have also gone through the record. Pursuant to the direction given by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order, FIR against the revisionist has already been registered. Sessions Court has no power to quash the FIR. It would have been different if revision was filed before registration of the FIR and in that case, some purpose would have been served by filing the revision in the Sessions Court. Since, Sessions Court cannot quash the FIR, present criminal revision petition is not maintainable and therefore, same is dismissed.
8. Copy of order alongwith trial court record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (T.S. KASHYAP)
today i.e on 24th July, 2014 ASJ-01/ Special Judge (NDPS)
Shahdara District, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 25/14, 3 of 3 Pages