Delhi District Court
Pc Act vs The State & Ors on 16 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 109/15
Rashmi .........Petitioner
Vs.
The State & Ors. ............Respondents
File received on assignment on : 15.12.2015
Arguments heard on : 16.12.2015
Order announced on : 16.12.2015
ORDER:
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by Ld. MM3, NorthWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that on 8.7.2015 at about 10.00 am one police official came to the house of the petitioner and told her that she has been summoned by SHO, PSNorth Rohini (Respondent no. 2) in the Police Station. She reached the police station at about 11.00 am and found one policeman namely Rajeev (Respondent no. 3) standing outside the police station. He took her to the room of SHO where SHO started abusing her. She was slapped and dragged to the adjoining room and was Criminal Revision No. 109/15 Page 1 of 6 Rashmi Vs. The State & Ors.
pushed on a bed lying there. Respondent no. 2 was furious and loudly said that he would teach her a lesson for filing complaint against him. He put his hand in her pajama and inserted his finger in her private part and at the same time he continued slapping her with his other hand. Thereafter, he called respondent no. 3 and asked him to implicate her in a false case. On these allegations a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC along with an application 156 (3) Cr.PC was filed before the trial court.
3. Status report was called from the DCP concerned by the Ld. MM.
4. I have heard Sh. Praveen Dabas, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, the trial court should have ordered for registration of FIR. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgmentLalita Kumari Vs. State of UP, MANU/SC/1166/2013.
5. I have gone through the trial court record as well as the judgment Lalita Kumari (Supra) cited before me.
6. The relevant portion of the status report is reproduced herein below for convenience:
"Findings of enquiry:
...Sh. Satish Chandra Sharma lodged a complaint vide no. LC619 dated 1.7.2015 against Ms. Rashmi and others wherein he alleged that Ms. Rashmi and Criminal Revision No. 109/15 Page 2 of 6 Rashmi Vs. The State & Ors.
her associates extorted money from him by putting him in fear of fabricating him in a false case of rape. He also provided the audio CDs and Videos in which Ms. Rashmi and her associates were seen taking extortion money from Sh. Satish Chandra Sharma. An enquiry in the complaint was conducted by the local police and it was established by the transcript of the CDs that Ms. Rashmi had put, Sh. Satish Sharma in fear of fabricating false case against him. A case vide FIR No. 510/15 U/s 389/34 IPC was registered against Ms. Rashmi and her associates. The investigation of the case was marked to SI Rajiv Kumar.
• On 8/7/2015 accused ms Rashmi was arrested in case FIR No. 510/15 U/s 389/34 IPC by W/SI Sona from her rented house at A1/16 Sector 6 Rohini. On scrutiny of the file it was found that she was arrested from the above mentioned address at 2PM in the presence of L/Ct Darshana. She was got medically examined from BSA Hospital Sector 6 Rohini vide MLC No. 7639 dated 8/7/2015 and produced in the court of Sh. Vipin Kharab, Ld. MM, Rohini Court, where she was remanded to judicial Custody.
• On the complaint of Ms. Pooja Verma, the local police had sought legal opinion from prosecution branch. As per the opinion of prosecution branch Rohini another case vide FIR No. 558/15 u/s 509 IPC PS North Rohini was registered against Rashmi and others on dated 18.07.15. The case is under investigation".
Conclusion:
"1. In the enquiry conducted the documentary record reflects that she was arrested on 8/7/2015 at 2M from Criminal Revision No. 109/15 Page 3 of 6 Rashmi Vs. The State & Ors.
her rented accommodation at A1/16 Sec. 6 Rohini New Delhi by W/SI Sona. On the other hand she was alleged that at 11AM the SHO sexually assaulted her in PS North Rohini. The Statements W/SI Sona and L/Ct Darshna who accompanied her in investigation of case FIR No. 510/15 PS North Rohini suggest that they had visited her house at about 12PM where Ms. Rashmi was found present. W/SI interrogated her and subsequently arrested her. The above mentioned observations cast a shadow on her allegations that she was sexually assaulted at 11AM in PS North Rohini by SHO.
2. After her arrest she was taken for medical examination which was conducted at BSA Hospital Sec. 6 Rohini. At the time of her medical examination, she did not bring the facts of physical or sexual assault before the examining doctor.
3. She was produced before the Duty MM on the same day but she did not complain about physical or sexual assault on her. She even did not bring this fact int he notice of the jail authorities at Tihar Jail. She had ample opportunity to complain about this fact to these independent authorities.
4. In the country reply filed by the complainant in the civil suit against her, she has only alleged physical assault by the SHO. There is no mention of sexual assault.
5. She has filed this complaint by post in mid September, after a period of more than two months from the alleged date of incident and has not joined enquiry or pursued the matter as she was aware that another case has been registered against her vide FIR No. 585/15 U/s 509 IPC PS North Rohini.
6. She joined the enquiry before W/SI Ritu No. 5249/D at CAW Cell, Outer District on 29/10/2015. In her, self written statement before the woman police officer she has not made any allegation of sexual assault Criminal Revision No. 109/15 Page 4 of 6 Rashmi Vs. The State & Ors.
(Rape) against Insp. Praveen Kumar, SHO North Rohini.
7. The police and public witness examined during the course of enquiry have stated in their respective statements that Ms. Rashmi was interrogated by SHO North Rohini, Insp. Praveen Kumar at the women help desk and she was not taken inside the SHO's room on 8/7/2015
8. The allegations in view of the above mentioned facts could not be substantiated. She has filed this complaint only to pressurize local police to alter the outcome of the investigation of the cases registered against her. She has been embroiled in a number of civil and criminal litigations and counter them she has filling complaints against the other parties and police officials"
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The alleged incident is dated 8.7.2015 while the matter was first reported by the complainant to the police by sending letters through post on 11.9.2015. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.
8. The judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel is to be read as a whole and not in parts. The Apex Court has provided in the said judgment itself that the preliminary enquiry may be made in cases where there is delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution. It has been further held that as to what type and in which cases preliminary enquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below for convenience:
Criminal Revision No. 109/15 Page 5 of 6
Rashmi Vs. The State & Ors.
"(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under.
a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes.
b) Commercial offences.
c) Medical negligence cases.
d) Corruption cases.
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Taking into consideration the report filed by the police, I am of the opinion that the trial court rightly declined registration of FIR in the present case. The trial court has passed a detailed order and the same calls for no interference by this Court.
10. In these circumstances and for the above said reasons, the present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 16.12.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBIIII, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Criminal Revision No. 109/15 Page 6 of 6 Rashmi Vs. The State & Ors.