Delhi District Court
Pulkit Khattar vs State Of Delhi on 7 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Unique I.D No. : 02403R0049522015
Criminal Revision Number : 5/02/2015
1. Pulkit Khattar
s/o Sh. Mahesh Khattar,
r/o WZ256E, GF, Left Portion,
Inderpuri,
New Delhi 110012.
2. Mahesh Khattar
s/o Late Sh. Thakur Dass Khattar,
r/o WZ256E, GF, Left Portion,
Inderpuri,
New Delhi 110012.
3. Neha Khattar
d/o Sh. Mahesh Khattar,
r/o WZ256E, GF, Left Portion,
Inderpuri,
New Delhi 110012. ...Petitioners/Revisionists
Versus
1. State of Delhi,
through its
Addl. Pub. Prosecutor,
At Department of Prosecution,
Patiala House Courts,
Delhi.
2. Pragati Khattar,
w/o Puneet Khattar,
r/o WZ256E, GF, Left Portion,
Inderpuri,
New Delhi 110012. ...Respondents
CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 1 of 8
Date of receipt of file in this Court : 18.03.2015
Date when arguments were heard : 30.03.2015
Date of Order : 07.04.2015
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Court of Sh. Sujit Saurabh, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 488/1/14 titled as Smt. Pragati Khattar Vs. Pulkit Khattar & Ors (3), Police Station Inderpuri, whereby the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that from the material on record prima facie cognizable offences were made out and hence directed the SHO concerned to register a FIR under relevant provisions of the IPC and to investigate the matter.
2. I have heard the rival submissions on behalf of learned counsel for the Revisionists, ld. Addl. PP for State / respondent no. 1 and ld counsel for the respondent no. 2 / complainant and have also carefully perused the record including the Trial Court record.
3. The ld counsel for the Revisionist argued that the revisionist no. 1 and 3 are real brother and sister respectively and are the children of revisionist no. 2, whereas the respondent no.2 / complainant is the daughter in law of revisionist no. 2 being the wife of Sh. Puneet Khattar i.e the son of revisionist no. 2 and the real brother of revisionist no. 1 and 3. He argued that the revisionist no. 1 is only aged about 24 years and is a student of CA Final year. He argued that in fact there was a property dispute between the respondent no. 2 and her husband Sh. Puneet Khattar on one side and the CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 2 of 8 revisionists on other side and that is why the respondent no. 2 in collusion with her husband has falsely implicated the revisionists in this case. He contended that the husband of respondent no. 2 is in illegal possession of one shop belonging to the revisionist no. 2 which is located at RA77/7, Inderpuri, New Delhi. He argued that on 03.03.2014, the electricity officials visited the premises to install electricity connection but the husband of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 started beating the revisionists, they abused the revisionists and in the meanwhile the respondent no. 2 gave bite injuries from her teeth and cause injuries on the stomach of her brother in law i.e revisionist no. 1, who suffered grievous injuries on that score. He argued that two PCR calls were made by the revisionist no. 2 at around 04.30 p.m, the PCR officials came and took all the persons to Dr. RML hospital, however, unfortunately, the statement of revisionist no. 1 was not properly recorded by the police and the doctor also failed to mention that there was a human bite injury caused by respondent no. 2. He argued that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the facts properly on record and the present matter has been got registered by respondent no.2 at the instance of her husband with an evil design to forcibly grab the properties of revisionist no. 2. He submitted that the learned Trial Court issued directions to the police to register the FIR on the basis of assumptions only and the court should have been cautious while passing the impugned order. He, however, fairly admitted that upon directions as contained in the impugned order, FIR no. 71/2015 u/s 354/323/509 /34 IPC PS Inderpuri has already been registered by the police and the investigation is in progress. He argued that the power u/s 156(3) Cr.PC has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and should be exercised only when the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court. He also CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 3 of 8 relied upon the following judgments :
i) Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs. State, 92( 2001) DLT 2017.
ii) Inder Mohan Goswamy Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
2007(4)JCC 2843.
iii) Order dated 04.02.2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criminal M.C No. 3593/2010 in the matter titled as Subhash Manchanda Vs. State.
The ld counsel for the revisionist thus argued that the impugned order may be set aside as it suffers from material irregularity and illegality.
4. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that facts of the case disclose commission of cognizable offences and the learned Trial Court was fully justified vide impugned order to direct the SHO concerned to register a FIR under the relevant provisions of IPC and to investigate the matter.
5. The ld counsel for the respondent no. 2 / complainant argued that the police was duty bound to register the FIR as the facts of the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences by the Revisionists herein. In that regard he also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. i.e. judgment dated 12.11.2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008. He argued that there is no material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 of the learned Trial Court. He further argued that the present Revision Petition is itself not maintainable as FIR no.71/2015 u/s 354/323/509/34 IPC PS Inderpuri has already been registered in consequence of the impugned order and if the impugned order is set aside by this court, then it will amount to quashing of the said FIR and the power to quash the FIR is only with the Hon'ble High Court.
CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 4 of 8
6. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant / respondent no. 2 filed a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for commission of offences u/s 109 /120B / 354 / 323 /325 /509 /34 IPC PS Inderpuri against the revisionists. She alleged that she was residing at WZ256E, Inderpuri, New Delhi along with her husband and a son who is about four years old and the Revisionists also reside at the said address. The Revisionist no. 1 and Revisionist no. 3 are the son and daughter of the Revisionist no. 2 respectively, whereas, the respondent no. 2 / complainant is the daughter in law of Revisionist no. 2 being the wife of his elder son namely Punit Khattar. Complainant / respondent no. 2 alleged that she married with Punit Khattar in the year 2008 as they fell in love with each other, however, the said marriage was not accepted by the Revisionists. She alleged in her complaint that she was being tortured by the Revisionists and they were also trying to destroy the small business of stationery being run by her husband. She specifically alleged in her complaint that on 3.3.2014, when she was lying in her room with her minor son and was supporting him to sleep, room was lying open and the Revisionist no. 1 after seeing the complainant lying on her bed entered her room. She alleged that the Revisionist no. 1 then hold her from the back side and said 'Bhabhi you look very nice', pushed her on the bed and lay over her body. She further alleged that the Revisionist no. 1 then caught hold her from her breast and squeezed the same in order to insult and outrage her modesty. She averred that the Revisionist no. 1 made physical contact with her by lying over her body involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures as well as demanding and requesting for sexual favours saying 'Bhabhi you look very nice'. The complainant / respondent no. 2 further averred in her complaint that she started shouting very loudly and using her right to private defence, pushed the Revisionist no. 1 and CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 5 of 8 went out of the room, however, in the mean time the Revisionist no. 1 torn her clothes from her back and thus he applied criminal force with the tearing of the clothes so that he could disrobe her and compel her to be naked. She further alleged that out of the gate of her room, the revisionist no. 2 and 3 were standing, the revisionist no.1 came from behind and said that she was a characterless lady, gave beatings to her because she was alleging false, the revisionist no. 3 shut the mouth of complainant and the revisionist no. 2 kicked her in her stomach and on the other parts of her body. She alleged that in the meanwhile her husband came and saw that she was being beaten by Revisionist no. 2 and thereafter gave a call to PCR by dialing no. 100, however, her husband was also given beatings by all the Revisionists. She averred that she also went out from her house and called the PCR who came and took her along with her husband to DR. RML hospital, where she was admitted and returned to her house on 04.03.2014 at 02.00 a.m. She alleged that she lodged a complaint dated 04.03.2014 against the Revisionists at PS Inderpuri vide diary no. 21A along with a complaint dated 19.04.2014 to the DCP but no action was taken by the Police officials.
7. The ld. Trial court upon receiving the complaint called for an action taken report which was filed before the ld. Trial court on 09.12.2014. The said ATR dated 09.12.2014 shows that during the course of inquiry ASI Umed Singh reached RML hospital from where he collected the MLCs of the complainant / respondent no. 2, her husband Punit Khattar and the Revisionist no. 1 Pulkit Khattar. It has been mentioned in the ATR that on the MLC of the complainant and her husband, the doctor opined the nature of injury under observation as blunt simple and on the MLC of Revisionist no. 1, the nature of injury was opined as human bite and simple blunt. It has been mentioned in the ATR that the inquiry conducted revealed that there CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 6 of 8 was a property dispute between the father and the son and a civil suit no. 81/14 was also pending in that regard in the court of Ms Saloni Singh, ld. Civil Judge, PHC, New Delhi. The ld Trial court after hearing the arguments and considering the said ATR, vide impugned order dated 11.03.2015 came to the conclusion that from the material on record prima facie cognizable offences were made out and hence directed the SHO concerned to register a FIR under relevant provisions of the IPC and to investigate the matter.
8. The facts of the complaint case, as mentioned above, in fact disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is a settled law that the registration of the FIR is mandatory u/s 154 Cr.P.C, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. { reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari's case (Supra )}. Although, it was desirable that the ld. Trial court should have mentioned some facts in the impugned order to show that cognizable offences were made out from the complaint, however, as mentioned above, the facts of the complaint case show the commission of cognizable offences. It seems that the allegations are serious in nature and the police investigation was required to unearth the complete facts of the case and to seize the alleged torn clothes of the complainant / respondent no. 2 etc. There can be no doubt over the law as laid down in the judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionists, however, they will not help the Revisionists as the facts of the complaint case show that the allegations were serious in nature and the police investigation was required.
9. Keeping in view the above said discussion, there is no material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 of the learned Trial Court vide which it was held that from the material available on record, prima facie cognizable offences were made out and the SHO CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 7 of 8 concerned was directed to register a FIR under relevant provisions of the IPC and to investigate the matter. It is also pertinent to note that it is an admitted fact that FIR no. 71/15, PS Inderpuri u/s 354/323/509/34 IPC has already been registered on 23.03.2015 in consequence of the impugned order.
10. The present revision petition is thus without any merits and is dismissed accordingly.
11. TCR be sent back along with copy of this order and the Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
Court on 07.04.2015 (AMIT BANSAL)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI
07.04.2015
CR no.5/2/15 Pulkit Khattar & Ors Vs State of Delhi & Anr. page 8 of 8