Delhi District Court
Anurag Sharma vs The State on 23 March, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA;
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.05/11
Anurag Sharma
S/o Sh. Kishan Chand Sharma
R/o T356A, Gali No.10,
Main Road, Gautam Puri,
Delhi53
.... Revisionist.
Vs.
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Hansraj
R/o 153, Gali No.3,
2nd Pusta, New Usmanpur,
Delhi
3. Chandra Pal S/o Sh. Bharat Singh
R/o A31, Ist. Pusta, New Usmanpur,
Delhi
.... Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 1 /7
2
Date of Institution : 21.02.2011
Date of Arguments : 04.03.2011
Date of Order : 24.03.2011
ORDER
The present Revision Petition is filed by Revisionist Anurag Sharma for setting aside the impugned order 15.11.2010 passed by Sh. Jitender Kumar, M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby he dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Revisionist.
The facts are that the Revisionist filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s 452/308/323/342/506/34 IPC against the two accused persons before the trial court. Vide order dated 15.11.2010 Sh. Jitender Kumar, M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Revisionist. However, the Revisionist was directed to lead his evidence.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 15.11.2010 passed by Ld. M.M., the present Revision Petition was filed by the Complainant/Revisionist. The Revisionist has challenged the impugned order mainly on the following grounds :
I) Ld. M.M. while passing the impugned order did not apply his Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 2 /7 3 judicial mind.
II) Ld. M.M. while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the fact that first the report was called from the concerned police station which was submitted before the court stating therein that the offence had already been committed by the accused persons in collusion and the accused had assaulted the complainant/Revisionist. III) Ld. M.M. while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the authority /judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gulab Chand Updhayay Vs.State of UP, 2002, Cr.L.J.2207.
I have heard Sh. R.S. Goswami Advocate for the Revisionist and Sh. Mukul Kumar Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State/Respondent no.1. I have also perused the file and trial court record.
It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the Ld. M.M has passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 in a hasty manner and failed to appreciate the facts of the case.
On the other hand, it was submitted by ld.Addl.P.P that there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 3 /7 4 by Ld. M.M. As per section 190 of the Cr.P.C there are three modes of taking cognizance of a criminal offence. The said provision is reproduced as under:
"190. Cognizance of offence by Magistrate.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence.
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case reported in 2009 X AD (DELHI) 701 titled as V.P.Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State and others, held that:
" The second mode provides filing of a Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 4 /7 5 complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. then the complainant is required to lead his evidence and if the Magistrate is satisfied, after recording pre summoning evidence, that a case is made out then the Magistrate can summon the accused. No doubt, there is a power available to the Magistrate to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C during the course of the pendency of such a complaint so as to enable the investigating agency to collect the evidence which may not be possible for the accused to lead. However, such power is not to be exercised enabling the complainant to misuse the provisions by seeking registration of FIR, which has not been registered on a complaint made to the S.H.O by complainant himself.
The insistence to direct the Magistrate to take the other course of exercise of directing registration of FIR by calling for an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is putting the entire Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 5 /7 6 Cr.P.C on a different pedestral. It is being raised by people who does not want to lead evidence or who does not have evidence to substantiate the complaint in accordance with law. In the present case also, the petitioner has not chosen to file a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C and he wanted to adopt a short cut. More so, when the allegations prima facie reveals that it is a civil matter.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Magistrate was not wrong while he refused to direct the police for registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as the evidence was available with the complainant and hence in view of the judgment ''2009 X AD (DELHI) 701 titled as V.P.Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State and others'' ( supra), the Ld. Magistrate did not commit any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. As such, the Revision Petition filed by the Revisionist is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Ld. M.M is upheld.
The trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 6 /7 7
The Revision filed be consigned to Record Room. Announced in Open court on this on 24.03.2011 ( Surinder Kumar Sharma ) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 05/11 Page 7 /7