Delhi District Court
Revisionist vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.204271/16
ID No. DLSE010010962014
S. Neyaz Ahmed
S/o Shri Ansarul Haque
R/o 84A, Pocket12, LIG DDA Flats
Jasola Vihar,
New Delhi
. . . . Revisionist
Through: Shri Ayub Khan
Advocate.
versus
1.State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent No. 1
Through: Sh. M. Zafar Khan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
2. Jitender Pal Sirohi
ASI PS Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi
..... Respondent No. 2
Through: In person.
3. Smt. Afsari Khatoon
W/o Obaidullah
4. Obaidullah
S/o Junaid Ahmed
CR No.204271/16 1 of 7
Both residing at
B1159/C, 2nd Floor,
Shaheen Bagh,
Abul Fazal EnclaveII,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi - 110025
5. Smt. Zahira Begum
W/o Altaf Khan
R/o B120, Pandara Road,
New Delhi
6. Altaf Khan
S/o Late Faiyaz Khan
R/o B120, Pandara Road,
New Delhi
..... Respondent No.3 to 6
Through: Shri M. Alam
Advocate.
7. SHO
PS Sarita Vihar
New Delhi
.....
Respondent No.7 Through: In person.
__________________________________________________________ Date of Institution : 23.08.2014 Date of receipt of file by way of transfer in this court : 15.09.2015 Date when arguments were heard : 15.09.2016 Date of Judgment : 04.10.2016 JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in the present petition filed under section 397 of The CR No.204271/16 2 of 7 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), is to the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short "MM")05, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case CC No.963/1/13 titled as S. Niyaz Ahmed Vs. Jitender Pal Sirohi & Others.
2. Revisionist had filed complaint / application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the court of learned MM, wherein he prayed to direct SHO Police Station Sarita Vihar to lodge FIR under section 119, 120, 120A, 166, 405, 415, 418, 420, 425, 441, 442, 445, 464 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") against the accused persons i.e. respondent No.2 to 6 and investigate the matter.
3. On the application / complaint of revisionist, learned MM was pleased to call Action Taken Report from SHO Police Station Sarita Vihar. Action Taken Report was filed in the case. After hearing counsel for revisionist and on consideration of entire material on record, learned MM was pleased to dismiss the application of revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 22.05.14.
Cognizance of the offence as made in the complaint was also declined. The complaint was disposed off.
4. Revisionist, feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 22.05.14 passed by learned MM, has preferred the present petition.
5. On notice of the petition, respondent No.1 appeared through Additional Public Prosecutor to contest the petition. Respondent no.3 CR No.204271/16 3 of 7 to 6 made appearance through their counsel Shri M. Alam. Respondent No.2 and 7 made appearance in person. A written reply to the petition of revisionist was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 to
6. The other respondents preferred not to file any reply to the petition of revisionist.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Shri M. Alam, learned counsel for respondent no.3 to 6.
7. In his complaint / application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist before the court of learned MM, SHO of Police Station Sarita Vihar was directed to submit Action Taken Report. The revisionist alleged that ASI Jitender Sirohi filed Action Taken Report before the court of learned MM without verifying the facts from him and he even did not call him as IO was under the influence of opposite party i.e. respondent No.3 to 6.
8. In the Action Taken Report, SI Parvesh Kasana stated that ASI Jitender Sirohi, IO of the case submitted Action Taken Report on the complaint of respondent No.4 Obaidullah in the court of Shri Deepak Sehrawat, the then learned MM, Saket Court. A detailed inquiry was conducted by ASI Jitender Sirohi and on the basis of the same, it was concluded that when complainant Obaidullah never entered into any agreement with the alleged person namely Neyaz Ahmed. Hence, said CR No.204271/16 4 of 7 Neyaz Ahmed fabricated the advance agreement to sale and purchase dated 20.12.11 for cheating. He further reported that on the basis of complaint made by revisionist Neyaz Ahmed, a case FIR No.480/13 under section 420/468/471 IPC was already registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar which was pending investigation. He further reported that two other cases of cheating vide FIR No.479/13 under section 420/468 IPC and FIR No.485/13 under section 420/468/471 IPC was also registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar in respect of same property dispute.
9. Revisionist Neyaz Ahmed also filed complaint against respondent No.2 ASI Jitender Pal Sirohi in PG Cell, Vigilance which is being inquired by the inquiry officers. In his report, SI Parvesh Kasana concluded that allegations levelled by revisionist are baseless and meaningless.
10. Learned MM declined to order for registration of FIR in the case due to the following reasons:
(a) The facts of the present case do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.
(b) Even otherwise, the allegations of complainant are such that the assistance of police machinery to recover anything is not warranted or investigation to collect any kind of material / evidence is not required.
(c) The order for registration of FIR shall not serve any CR No.204271/16 5 of 7 justified purpose in the present set of facts.
11. Learned MM further noted that on the basis of facts as stated by revisionist / complainant in para No.3 to 12 of his complaint, one FIR was already registered and the present complaint was nothing but merely a reiteration of facts to clarify the allegations levelled against accused No.1. Similarly, the reference to accused No.2 to accused No.6 in the Memo of Parties of the complaint appeared mere repetition.
12. Considering the Action Taken Report furnished by police, the fact that on the basis of complaint of revisionist, inquiry was already initiated by Vigilance Department of Delhi Police against respondent No.2 ASI Jitender Pal Sirohi, the contents of the complaint and the allegations made therein, the application moved by revisionist under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The complaint was also disposed off.
13. There is no denial of the fact that on the complaint of revisionist, FIR No.480/13 is not registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar. Two other FIRs are also registered at the same Police Station in respect of same property dispute. The parties are levelling allegations and counterallegations against each other. The truth of the matter will come when investigation in the said cases is complete and police files report in the court. No purpose will be served by registering another FIR on the same set of allegations as levelled by revisionist in CR No.204271/16 6 of 7 his complaint. (Particularly para No.3 to 12 of the complaint). So far as grievance of revisionist for collusion of ASI Jitender Pal Sirohi (respondent No.2) with other respondents is concerned, revisionist has already filed complaint against ASI Jitender Pal Sirohi in Vigilance Department of Delhi Police and the same is being inquired by the concerned authority.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of learned MM which calls for interference by this court. The impugned order is well reasoned and based on correct appreciation of facts. No ground to interfere in the order of learned MM is made out. Hence, the petition filed by revisionist is dismissed.
15. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 04.10.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.204271/16 7 of 7