Delhi District Court
Smt. Ganga Devi vs S.I. Ashwani Kumar on 6 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMARII, ASJ01, (NORTHEAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0249102013
Criminal Revision No. 13/2013
Assigned to Sessions. 12.08.2013
Arguments heard on. 14.12.2013
Date of order. 06.01.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Ganga Devi,
W/o Sh. Babu Ram Tomar,
R/o Tomar Niwas, House No.132,
Street No.2, New Chouhanpur,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi - 110094.
...........Revisionist
Versus
1. S.I. Ashwani Kumar,
2. Ct. Amit Kumar,
3. Inspector Lekh Raj, SHO,
Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
4. State.
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
.........Respondents
ORDER :
1. The present revision petition under section 397 r/w 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed against the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 passed by Ms. Ravinder Bedi, Ld. CMM, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, thereby declining Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 1/7 the request to issue an appropriate direction for registration of FIR on application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/revisionist has filed a complaint under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, before the court of CMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 14.02.2012 against the respondents No.1 to 3 with a prayer to register an FIR under sections 323/347/354/357/452/506/511/120B/34 IPC for committing trespassing under the effect of alcohol, molestation, misbehaviour, manhandling, beating & conspiratedly attempt to extorting rupees 5 lakh etc. from the revisionist & her family and the same was marked and assigned to Sh. Murari P. Singh, Ldm MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Subsequently, the same was transferred and decided by Ms. Ravinder Bedi, Ld. CMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is further stated that Sh. M.P. Singh, Ld. MM seek the status report on 10.04.2012 from the office of DCP, North East, Delhi and the status report was filed by the Addl. DCP, Sh. Rajneesh Gupta. The complaint u/s 156 (3) was finally decided by the Court of Ms. Ravinder Bedi, Ld. CMM, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi who on 09.05.2013 adjudicated the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. finally and thereby declined the request of the complainant to register the FIR against the respondent persons of the matter. However, Ld. CMM has let the complainant with an opportunity to file the pre summoning evidence under section 200 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner/revisionist.
3. The contention of counsel for revisionist is that the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 passed by Ld. CMM is bad and perverse as it overlooks the settled provisions of law and the same has been passed without considering the real facts and circumstances of Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 2/7 the complaint filed by the revisionist u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
4. Ld. counsel for revisionist/petitioner submits that Ld. CMM while passing impugned order dated 09.05.2013 failed to appreciate the real facts as stated by the revisionist in her complaint under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
5. Ld. counsel further submits that Ld. CMM has failed to appreciate the fact that it has been wrongly mentioned in the paragraph No.2 in the impugned order that it was the respondent No.3 who had ensured to take strict action against the respondent No.1 and
2. Even though in the complaint filed by the revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. it has been clearly stated by the revisionist that it was the Addl. SHO and not the respondent No.3 i.e. SHO P.S. Karawal Nagar, Inspector Lekh Raj, who had ensured the complainant and her family members that the strict action would be taken againt the respondent No.1 and 2. Thus the impugned order has been passed without going through the real facts of the complaint and it appears as if the Ld. CMM was drawing her own deductions out of her own imaginations which is clearly visible in the impugned order.
6. Ld. counsel for revisionist/petitioner further submits that Ld. CMM has heavily relied upon the status report filed by Addl. D.C.P., North East, Delhi, even though it is not a part of the facts stated by the revisionist in her complaint under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. It appears as if the Ld. CMM has passed the impugned order after being biased towards the respondent persons, who are the police officials of her local jurisdiction and by ignoring the victimization faced by the revisionist at the hands of the said respondent persons as clearly alleged by her in her complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 3/7
7. Ld. counsel for revisionist/petitioner further submits that while passing the impugned order Ld. CMM has wrongly mentioned that the complainant does not show any justifiable ground after police investigation and is thus liable to be dismissed as in para No.9 of the impugned order itself, it has been observed by the Ld. CMM that the investigation in FIR No.19/12 PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi is still going on and as no FIR has been registered till date in respect of the allegations raised by the revisionist in the complaint in question, so no question of police investigation in the same arises. The observation passed by the Ld. CMM in para No.10 is thus not sufficient and justifiable to dismiss the complaint of the revisionist. On these grounds, Ld. counsel has prayed to set aside the order of ld. CMM dated 09.05.2013 and direct the police officials police station of Karawal Nagar, Delhi to register the FIR against the respondent No.1 to 3.
8. On other hand, Ld. APP for the State argued that the order of Ld. CMM is quite good and does not suffer from irregularity, incorrectness and impropriety and court while exercising revisional jurisdiction court cannot interfere in the order of Ld. CMM.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record Ld. MM has called status report from police in which DCP, North East on application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the applicant. DCP, North East in its status report has stated parawise as under :
"1.With regard to the incident dated 12.01.2012, it is submitted that a PCR Call was received at PS Karawal Nagar at 09:15 PM vide DD No.30A wherein the complainant Smt. Lali Devi r/o 124125, Gali No.1 H, New Chauhan Pur, Mata Wali Gali, Karawal Nagar alleged that one Sanjeev Tomar along with his nephew Jogi @ Joginder and 23 other persons, under the influence of alcohol, also carrying weapons forcibly Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 4/7 entered her house and assaulted her and other family members. They also threatened to kill the complainant and her family members.
2. After that, SI Ashwani Kumar along with Ct. Amit reached at the residence of Sanjeev Tomar i.e. House No.132, New Chouhan Pur, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, where both the police officials were forcibly confined by Smt. Ganga Devi and his sons namely Sanjeev tomar and Manoj Tomar as they locked the house from inside. The police officials were further beaten and threatened for their lives. Eventually, with the help of police force the release of the said police officials was secured and a case vide FIR No.19/2012 u/s 452/342/186/353/332/356/379/323/506/34 IPC was registered in PS Karawal Nagar Delhi. The allegations leveled by the complainant are false and fabricated.
3. On 13.01.2012, Smt. Ganga Devi @ Maggo was arrested and was subsequently released on bail on 14.01.2012 pursuant to the orders of the Ld. Duty Magistrate.
4. Other coaccused have been absconding. Several raids were conducted for the arrest of the accused persons as NBWs were issued against the said accused persons. Accused persons are having criminal back ground and they are terror for the local residents. The complainant Smt. Laali Devi is a poor widow lady and she has been terrorized and being forced withdraw the complaint as verified from the local inquiry.
5. (i) It is humbly submitted that accused Sanjeev Tomar is involved in the below mentioned three cases;
1.FIR No.63/02 dated 23.08.2002 u/s 18/29, NDPS Act, P.S. Narcotics Branch, Delhi.
2.FIR No.45/2007 dated 23.10.2007 u/s 341/323/452/506/34 IPC, P.S. Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
3.FIRNo.106/2009 dated 16.05.2009 u/s 147/148/149/323/308/452/429/34 IPC, P.S. Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
(ii) The accused Joginder @ Jogi is also involved in another case FIR No.106/2009 dated 06.05.2009 u/s 147/148/149/323/308/452/429/34 IPC, P.S. Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
6. That Ganga Devi filed a Writ Petition (Crl) No.216/2012 titled Ganga Devi & Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., Hon'ble Justice Mukta Gupta disposed off the petition on 22.03.2012 with the direction to transfer the investigation of the case FIR No.19/12 to DIU North East District.
7. Now, the investigation of the case has been transferred to DIU/NE for further investigation, while Anticipatory bail application of Sanjeev Tomar and Joginder @ Jogi has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi.
8. That the allegations made by the petitioners in the present complaint are concocted, baseless and just to pressurize the police.
Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 5/7
9.It is pertinent to mention here that an independent enquiry on the complaint filed by Smt. Ganga Devi in NHRC, on dated 21.01.2012 was got conducted through ACP PG Cell, North East. After inquiry it was concluded that allegations leveled by the complainant could not be substantiated. Hence, the allegations leveled against the police officials could not be substantiated."
10.On perusal of order of Ld. CMM dated 09.05.2013, it is revealed that prima facie, the complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. seems to be an attempt just to dissuade and pressurize the investigating agency from carrying out the proper investigation in Case FIR No.19/12, P.S. Karawal Nagar in which revisionist's son is an accused and is facing charges u/s 452/323/506/342/353/186/332/34 IPC.
11.Further, para 11 of the order of Ld. CMM states, however, let the complainant be given an opportunity to file presummoning evidence under section 200 Cr.P.C. Be posted for PSE under section 200 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2013.
12.Since order on application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is an interlocutory order, hence, according to section 397 clause 2 Cr. P.C. revision not maintainable before this court.
13.Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled as "Basappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and another, ILR, 1987 Karnataka 994", has held that :
"When, no investigation, the police submit 'B' summary report or a 'C' summary report saying the complaint is false or that it is a civil dispute or that there is no evidence three courses are open to the Magistrate; (i) either to accept the 'B' summary report and drop all further action, or
(ii) on consideration of the 'B' report direct the police to make further investigation or (iii) take cognizance of the offence, if any, disclosed on the very report. Where the Magistrate, accepts the 'B' summary Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 6/7 report the only course left to the magistrate is to drop all further action.
On such acceptance of the 'B' report he having not taken cognizance, no criminal proceedings. There being no order passed by the Magistrate in criminal proceedings pending before him, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision."
14.In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order of Ld. CMM dated 09.05.2013 is an interlocutory order and according to section 397 (2) Cr. P.C. revision is not maintainable against interlocutory order. Hence, same is not maintainable before this court. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. The trial court record be returned back along with the copy of this order. The file of the revision proceedings be consigned to the record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 06.01.2014.
( RAMESH KUMARII ) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01, NE KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Criminal Revision No.13/2013 Smt. Ganga Devi Vs. Ashwani and others 7/7