Delhi District Court
Rehman Aftab Alam vs State ( Govt. N.C.T. Of Delhi ) on 29 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
Rehman Aftab Alam
S/o Aftab Alam
R/o F198, Gali No.27, Old Mustafabad,
Delhi110094
.......... Revisionist
Vs.
State ( Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi )
........... Respondent.
Criminal Revision No. : 45/2011
Date of Institution : 05.08.2011
Date of Arguments : 24.08.2011
Date of Order : 29.08.2011
O R D E R :
The present revision is filed by the Revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.7.2011 passed by Sh. Jitender Singh Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, in a complaint case, whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the Revisionist. Crl. Revision No. 45/2011 Page 1/6 2
Briefly stated the case of the Revisionist is that he filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. against nine persons along with an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Ld. ACMM, KKD Delhi for direction to SHO of Police Station Gokal Puri for the registration of FIR against the accused persons.
Vide order dated 18.7.2011 Shri Jitender Singh Ld..M.M. North East, KKD, Delhi passed the impugned order whereby he dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C of the Revisionist. However, while taking the cognizance of the offence as alleged, the Complainant/Revisionist was directed to bring the evidence.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the Revisionist challenged the impugned order mainly on the grounds that the Trial Court passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind, without considering the documents on record and without examining any witness including the complainant, the Trial Court failed to exercise the discretion properly by refusing to direct the police to register a case and conduct the investigation.
I have heard Sh. D.P.S. Tomar Advocate for the Revisionist and Sh. Mukul Kumar Addl. P.P. for State/Respondent. I have also perused the file & trial court record. Crl. Revision No. 45/2011 Page 2/6 3
It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a hasty manner and without application of mind. It was further submitted that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is illegal, bad in law and hence it liable to be set aside. It was further contended that the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case and documents on record before passing the impugned order.
On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is correct and there is no illegality in the said order.
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 Crl. Revision No. 45/2011 Page 3/6 4 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.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub section (1) of such offence as are within his competence to inquire into or try."
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 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 Crl. Revision No. 45/2011 Page 4/6 5 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 Cr.P.C on a different pedestal. 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 it has been rightly observed by the Crl. Revision No. 45/2011 Page 5/6 6 Ld. Trial Court that the evidence which is required to be led is in possession of the Revisionist.
In view of the above discussion and in view of the judgment 2009 X AD (DELHI) 701 titled as V.P.Sharma(Dr.) Vs. State and others ( supra) I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and accordingly, the same is upheld. The revision petition is dismissed.
The Trial Court record be sent back with copy of this order.
The Revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in open Court on 29th August 2011 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge (North East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Crl. Revision No. 45/2011 Page 6/6