Delhi District Court
Sh. Vinod Kumar Pathak vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 11 May, 2018
Criminal Revision No.99/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 99/2018
Under Section : 200 Cr.P.C.
CC No. : 1215/2018
PS : Pandav Nagar
CNR No. : DLET01-002824-2018
In the matter of :-
1. SH. VINOD KUMAR PATHAK
S/o. Sh. H.S. Pathak,
R/o. 165, Bhagat Sadan, Agra Gali,
Attkhamba, Virndavan, Mathura, U.P-2811201.
2. SMT. PRIYANKA PATHAK
D/o. Sh. Vinod Kumar Pathak,
R/o. 165, Bhagat Sadan, Agra Gali,
Attkhamba, Virndavan, Mathura, U.P.
............PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
2. SH. NEERAJ KUMAR GARG
S/o. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o. H.No.C-3, Second Floor,
Gali No.2, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar,
Phase No.1, Delhi-110091.
3. S.H.O.
PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 03.05.2018
Date of reserving order : 10.05.2018
Date of pronouncement : 11.05.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 1 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.99/2018
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2018, passed by trial court in a complaint case titled as Sh. Neeraj Kumar Garg v. Sh. Vinod Kumar Pathak & Anr., bearing CC No.1215/2018. Vide impugned order dated 20.03.2018, trial court directed to register FIR in the present case under appropriate sections of law.
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that complainant Sh. Neeraj Kumar Garg/respondent no.2 herein made several complaints to different authorities including complaint made in PS Pandav Nagar against accused no.1 i.e. Vinod Kumar Pathak and accused no.2 i.e. Priyanka Pathak including one unknown person vide DD No.37B dated 09.02.2018. Along with complaint, complainant also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before trial court. In his complaint, complainant alleged that accused no.1 being his father-in-law and accused no.2 being his wife (daughter of accused no.1) and one other unknown caller threatened him telephonically from mobile no.7017341235 at 19:25 hours on his mobile no.9582827518 on 12.11.2017. Thereafter, complainant made call at 100 number. Complainant further alleged that again on 16.11.2017 between 18:30 to 18:45 hours, when he was parking his bike, a man in helmet came on bike just outside his residence and terrorized him by showing gun/pistol and gave extreme life threatening warnings stating that "tu police me badi complaint karta hai tere sar k bichon bich goli mar dunga.". Thereafter, complainant again made call at 100 number. Complainant further alleged that accused no.1 and 2 had been demanding and threatening to either give Rs.30 lac or a 3BHK flat in Delhi NCR or Page 2 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.99/2018 else they would kill him and got a false rape case or NDPS case registered against him. Complainant also alleged that they threatened to publish the same in all the local newspapers and would distribute pamphlets and paste posters at his hometown in Jhansi, U.P and at his current residence in Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi. Complainant also alleged that he was already implicated by accused no.2 in false dowry case to extort money and he had decided not to bow down to the illegal demands of accused no.1 and 2. Hence, this complaint.
3. While deciding application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, trial court observed that allegations made in the complaint were serious in nature, which disclosed commission of cognizable offences. Trial court also observed that complainant had been threatened with his life and had been asked to pay Rs.30 lac by 31.03.2018, failing which he would be killed. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, trial court relying upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, passed impugned order giving direction to SHO PS Pandav Nagar to register an FIR as per Section 154 Cr.P.C for appropriate Sections of law ensuring that proper protection given to the complainant. GROUNDS : -
4. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20.03.2018, petitioner has preferred present petition on the following relevant grounds, which are as follows :-
● That impugned order dated 20.03.2018 suffered from illegality, irregularity or impropriety and not justified under settled provision of law.
● That trial court did not appreciate that respondent no.2 concealed the fact that family court had not granted the visiting rights to meet Page 3 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.99/2018 the child in his favour. This fact was concealed since the matrimonial dispute was pending between the parties and petitioner no.2 had got lodged case for demanding of dowry and maintenance petition against respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 filed custody of child.
● That respondent no.2 sought relief from trial court on the basis of complaint moved on 09.02.2018 vide DD No.37B, whereas no such order dated 16th November 2017 was passed by Family Court in the case No.114/17 of custody. Even respondent no.2 was not granted the visiting rights. Trial court without going through the order dated 16.11.2017 passed the impugned order. ● That trial court passed impugned order to register the FIR without passing speaking order and trial court did not draw the attention towards the facts that respondent no.2 himself was in possession of evidence to prove his allegations of giving threats. Police had no role in this regard as such there was no need of passing the impugned order.
● That trial court failed to draw the kind attention towards the facts that firstly on 19.11.2017 respondent no.2 had shown his apprehension of his arrest in any false case or an apprehension of attack on him. Thereafter, on 12.01.2018, respondent no.2 again approached police station Pandav Nagar to register the case for giving life threating calls from mobile no.7017341235 by stranger man, who followed him in person and showed gun in helmet, outside his residence. Upon the complaint in writing, NCR No.001/ 2018 under Section 506 IPC dated 12.01.2018 was registered at PS Pandav Nagar. In the entire complaint, respondent no.2 had not leveled any allegations of demanding Rs.30 lac or to commit extortion from him by unknown person or against petitioners. No Page 4 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.99/2018 specific allegations had been leveled in both complaints dated 19.11.2017 and 12.01.2018, but after expiry of one month i.e. on 09.02.2018, respondent no.2 again moved written complaint thereby leaving same allegations of giving threats at this mobile from unknown number in para no.2,7 & 8 of complaint. Even by adding certain other allegations of demanding Rs.30 lac or to kill him against the petitioners, made it clear that second complaint dated 09.02.2018 was based on the same allegations of NCR bearing no.0001/2018. Same had been filed with the view to implicate petitioners in a false case.
● That trial court also failed to draw kind attention towards the fact that respondent no.2 did not explain that on which date, month and year, when he was threatened or how the threats were given to him as per para no.3 of his written complaint dated 09.02.2018. Respondent no.2 could not get implicated petitioners in any case by lodging NCR No.0001/2018 under Section 506 IPC, only then he moved said complaint by creating false ground of para no.3 of complaint against both petitioners.
● That trial court did not consider status report dated 20.03.2018 filed by concerned SHO/IO, wherein it was disclosed that matter was family dispute.
● That trial court passed impugned order without giving any reason that why the direction given in exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which were required to be mentioned specifically. (Ref. 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 495 (Delhi)) ARGUMENTS :-
5. It is borne out from the revision petition itself that in pursuance to direction given by ld. MM, FIR No.87/18 has already been registered by police. In view of the same submissions were invited regarding Page 5 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.99/2018 purpose of filing this revision petition, especially when it was conceded by ld. counsel that this court cannot quash the FIR. Ld. counsel for petitioners argued that revision petition is maintainable and it is so held by High Court of Delhi in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa, 236 (2017) DLT 612. He further submitted that in the revisional jurisdiction this court may give direction to the trial court to rehear the parties and to pass appropriate order. In this respect, he referred to case law cited as Parsa Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2007 (5) RCR Criminal 623. He further submitted that the revision is against the impugned order and this court has same power as conferred upon High Court, to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and this court can rectify the illegality in the impugned order. In this respect ld. counsel referred to Akham Ibodi Singh v. Akham Biradhwaja Singh, 2006 (4) RCR Criminal 778. APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS & DECISION :-
6. As far as legal principles projected by ld. counsel are concerned, there is no dispute against existence of such legal principles. However, the question is that whether in the present case entertaining this revision petition would yield any meaningful purpose. Petitioner has challenged the order for registration of FIR as he did not want the FIR to be registered. However, FIR has already been registered. It is true that this court enjoys power under Section 397 Cr.P.C concurrently with High Court, but such powers of revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when it is found that some fruitful purpose would be served. For the sack of argument, if it is assumed that impugned order was passed illegal, still though this court may set aside this order, but this court cannot quash the FIR which is already registered. Such powers can be exercised by High Court only under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any meaningful Page 6 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.99/2018 purpose for this revision petition, as it would be like simply obtaining a declaration that FIR was registered on the basis of some incorrect and illegal order. However, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely for the purpose of declaration. Therefore, I do not find a logical purpose to go ahead in hearing the plea of petitioner on merits against impugned order. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to approach High Court to seek quashing of the FIR. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
7. Copy of this order be sent to trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.05.11 17:03:41 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 11.05.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 7 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 7 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi