Delhi District Court
Sh. Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State on 28 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02
EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Rev. No.107/19
Sh. Satyender Bhushan Jain
S/o late Sh. Pooran Mal Jain
R/o E10/A, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Sh. T.C. Singla
H13/1, Main Market,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092
3. Sh. Sudedh Kumar Jain
s/o Sh. Gopal Prasad Jain
r/o M85, 1st Floor,
Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110092
4. Sh. Aurangzeb Khan
S/o Sh. Allauddin Khan,
r/o H.No.302, Gali no.2,
Krashan Puri, Mandawali, Delhi110092
5. Sh. Sharukh Ali Khan
s/o Sh. S. Aashik Ali,
R/o 302, Shashi Garden,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi110092
6. Sh. Mithun Patel
R/o H.No.786, Gali No.1,
Near Primary School, Mandawali,
Delhi110092
All respondents also at:
M/s Singla Departmental Store,
H13/1, Vijay Chowk,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092
Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 1 of 7
......Respondents
Date of institution 15.05.2019
Arguments heard 29.07.2019
Date of order 28.08.2019
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed the present revision petition against the order 10.10.2018 passed by Ms. Nabeela Wali, Ld. MM, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in the complaint case no.2043/18, titled as Satender Bhushan Jain vs Mr. T.C. Singla & Ors. (hereafter revisionist has been referred as complainant and respondents no.2 to 6 as R2 to R6). Vide impugned order, the application filed by revisionist under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the revisionist has filed his complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. mainly with the following allegations:
(a)That for the last about 35 years, the complainant is doing the business of stationary items at his shop situated at G35 Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. In his neighbourhood, R2 is also having a shop at H13/1 Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The fancy items at the shop of the complainant are cheaper and there is business competition between them and due to this, R2 and his associates have developed enmity with the complainant. It is stated that R2 and his associates used to abuse and pick up Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 2 of 7 quarrel with the complainant.
(b)On 27.03.2015, R2 and workers of his shop deliberately picked up quarrel with the complainant and badly beaten him. Again on 19.10.2015 at about 9 pm, the workers of R2 picked up quarrel with the complainant.
(c) On 25.09.2016, R3, R4 and R5 picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused him and they restrained the complainant and beaten him due to which he suffered injuries on his left little finger. He was also medically examined. It is stated that the complainant had been making complaints about the said activities of the respondents, however, police did not take any action. It is further stated that he was threatened by the employees of R2 on 13.10.2016 and 20.10.2016 about which also, he made police calls.
(d)On 16.02.2017, at about 11.15 am, the employees of R2 again threatened complainant and picked up quarrel with him. On 22.02.2017, R3 to R5 abused the complainant and beaten him in front of his shop. Police did not register the case and only register a kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. and arrested R4 and R3 was released.
(e)It is submitted that in regard to the aforesaid conduct of R2 to R6, the complainant made complaints to the police on dated 27.03.2017, 17.04.2017, 01.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 01.01.2018, however, police did not take any action. On these grounds, it is Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 3 of 7 prayed that direction to register FIR u/s 308/506/34/120B IPC against R2 to R6 may be issued.
3. Ld. M.M called for the status report on the application of the revisionist. It was reported by the IO concerned that during local inquiry, it was found that complainant is a habitual complainant and he has filed complaints against many people in the locality and market area. It is also stated that in regard to the beating of complainant and creating nuisance in the area a kalandra was prepared u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C against Shahrukh, Ali and Aurangzeb, the workers of T.C. Singla.
4. After considering the status report and hearing the arguments, Ld. M.M. dismissed the application of the revisionist on the ground that there is no requirement of any police investigation and in case of need, inquiry can be had u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
5. Now the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the dismissal of the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C mainly on the following grounds:
(a)That Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the complaint filed by the complainant disclosed commission of cognizable offences by R2 to R6, thus, it was imperative on the part of the police authority to register an FIR. In this regard, complainant had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs State of UP & Ors, 2014(2) SCC 1 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Radha vs State, 2011 (2) JCC 1414.
Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 4 of 7
(b)That Ld. MM failed to appreciate that complainant was physically assaulted and criminally intimidated by R2 to R6, therefore, police investigation was required.
(c) Ld. MM has passed the impugned order without considering the ATR submitted by Investigating Officer which apparently called for further investigation. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for complainant has further placed reliance upon the following judgments: i. Lallan Chaudhary & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr., 2006 (3) JCC 1731 ii. Parivartan & Anr. vs. MCD & Ors., 128 (2006) DLT 732 (DB) iii. Laxminarayan Gupta vs Commissioner of Police, 2006 (2) JCC 1058 iv. Priya Gupta vs State, 2007 (2) JCC 1330 v. Smt. Masuman vs. State of UP & Ors., 2007 91) CRJ 129 vi. Parkash Singh Badal & Anr., vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2007 (1) JCC 236.
vii. M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2002 CRI L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi) viii. Paradise Credit P. Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi, Crl. M.C. No.2936 of 2012
(d) That Ld. MM failed to appreciate that in the present case, complainant is not in a position to get the entire evidence for prosecuting R2 to R6 on his own and assistance of state machinery is necessary for effective prosecution of respondents as the case relates to attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and criminal intimidation by the respondents Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 5 of 7 and thus, it is prayed that impugned order may be set aside and SHO concerned may be directed to register a case against R2 to R6 u/s 308/506/34 and 120B IPC.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and gone through the record.
7. In the case reported as 2013 (10) SCC 705 titled as Anil Kumar and Ors v. M.K. Aiyappa and Ors and in the recent case reported as Crl. Appeal No. 781/12 titled as Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P and Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Magistrate is to apply his mind and cannot act in mechanical and casual manner while exercising his power u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
8. In the case of Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. Vs. State and Anr 2010 (170) DLT 516, the Hon'ble High Court has laid down the guidelines which are to be followed for appropriate disposal of the applications u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is held by Hon'ble High court in the case of 2014 (3) AD (Delhi) 577 titled as Satpal Sirohi vs. State that the Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of the FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner. It is also held in this case that if need arises the investigation can be conducted u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
9. As per complainant, on 22.02.2017, he was threatened and beaten up by R4 to R6. It is clear from the record that about which kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C was prepared and complainant was also medically examined. The preventive action was taken against R4 Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 6 of 7 and R5. It is also clear that the complainant is aware of the names of the proposed accused and he is also in possession of necessary evidence. Thus, under these circumstances, the direction to investigate into the complaint of the revisionist is not required and therefore, it is held that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly directed the revisionist to lead presummoning evidence qua his allegations. Furthermore, in case any investigation which is found necessary by the Ld. Trial Court, regarding the complaint of revisionist, the Ld. Trial Court is empowered u/s 202 Cr.P.C and can get the matter investigated. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
10.TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY GUPTA Location: Delhi GUPTA Date: 2019.08.28 17:05:42 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) ASJ2/KKD/East/Delhi Announced in open court on 28.08.2019 Cr. Rev. No.107/19 Satyender Bhushan Jain vs State & Ors. 7 of 7