Delhi District Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CR No. 365/2019
DEEPAK KUMAR
S/o SH. HARISH CHANDRA
R/o D-57, GAYATRI APARTMENTS
PLOT NO. 27, SECTOR 10
DWARKA-110075
DELHI ....REVISIONIST
VS.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 07.06.2019
First date before this court : 07.06.2019
Arguments concluded on : 23.06.2020
Date of Decision : 24.06.2020
APPEARANCE : None for revisionist
Sh. K.D. Pachauri, APP for State
JUDGMENT:
1. The revisionist being complainant defacto in case FIR no. 21/2018 of PS I.P. Estate for offence under Section 420/406/120-B IPC has assailed order dated 07.05.2019 of the learned Magistrate.
2. On account of Covid19 lockdown, hearing in court was not possible so learned counsel for revisionist as CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 1 of 7 pages well as learned prosecutor were granted opportunity to address arguments through videoconferencing. Learned prosecutor addressed the arguments through video conferencing yesterday, but learned counsel for revisionist opted to file written arguments, which have been examined by me.
3. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present revision petition are as follows. On a complaint lodged by the revisionist, PS I.P. Estate registered FIR no. 21/2018 on 03.02.2018 for offence under Section 420/406/120-B IPC. Thereafter, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate on which status report was called and after going through the same, the learned Magistrate passed the following impugned order:
07.05.2019 Present: Learned counsel for complainant IO Inspector Ashok Kumar in person Status report received received from the IO as per which FIR has been registered in the present case.
In these circumstances, the proceedings in the complaint case are hereby stayed u/s 210 Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance with direction to revive the same as and when the chargesheet is filed.
Ahlmad is directed to tag the complaint case alongwith the chargesheet as and when the same is filed.
MM-09/Central/Delhi Hence, the present revision petition.
CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 2 of 7 pages
4. On behalf of revisionist it is contended that the impugned order is contrary to law insofar as the revisionist had sought monitoring of the investigation in the abovementioned FIR. Revisionist has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409. On behalf of revisionist it is also argued that under 156 (3) Cr.P.C, the Magisterial Court has wide powers to direct registration of FIR as well as to monitor investigation in the same, therefore, according to the revisionist the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. On the other hand, learned prosecutor argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order insofar as according to the trial court record also, the IO had already filed a status report, so the prayer made by the revisionist before the Magisterial Court already stood granted. Learned prosecutor further argued that according to the legal position, it is only the status report which is to be filed by the IO and the Magistrate has no power to direct how further investigation should be carried out.
6. The basic challenge to the impugned order is that by way of same, on the basis of status report received from the CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 3 of 7 pages Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate stayed the complaint case under Section 210 Cr.P.C. The provision under Section 210 Cr.P.C. lays down "Section 210 Cr.P.C : Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in the respect of the same offence- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during course of the enquiry or trial held by him, that investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall enquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the enquiry or trial which was stayed by him in accordance with the provisions of this code "
7. As is obvious, the provision under Section 210 Cr.P.C basically deals with a Complaint Case filed under CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 4 of 7 pages Section 200 Cr.P.C. What was filed by the revisionist before the learned Magistrate was an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and not a Complaint Case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. That being so, there was no occasion before the learned Magistrate to stay the proceedings invoking the provisions under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Rather, it appears that the learned Magistrate overlooked the proceedings filed before him, which were under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and not a Complaint Case. On this count itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. As regards powers of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) as follows:
"..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................
11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 5 of 7 pages investigation.
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
9. Thence, what was required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Magistrate in the present case was as to whether the investigation is being properly conducted and whether it is a fit case to monitor the investigation.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned prosecutor, before the learned Magistrate two status reports were filed by the IO. In the first report dated 07.05.2018, the IO apprised the learned Magistrate that on complaint of the present revisionist, FIR no. 21/2018 had been registered and that investigation was in progress. In the second report dated 17.09.2018, the IO apprised the learned Magistrate that in the course of investigation some documents had been collected from the company and a bank and some of the employees of the bank also had joined investigation and further period of three months was required to complete the investigation. This would show that monitoring of the investigation had already commenced before the learned Magistrate in view of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. That being so, there was no occasion for the CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 6 of 7 pages learned Magistrate to invoke Section 210 Cr.P.C and stay the proceedings mistakenly treating the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C as Complaint Case under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
11. In view of the above discussion, I am unable to uphold the legality, correctness or propriety of the impugned order, so the same is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. A copy of this judgment alongwith trial court record be sent back to the learned trial court for adjudicating upon the application of the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C in accordance with law. The revisionist in person or through his counsel, shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 22.08.2020. Long date has been fixed keeping in mind the suspension of work in the courts due to Covid-19 lockdown.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced through video conferencing due to Covid 19 lockdown On this 24th June, 2020 (GIRISH KATHPALIA) District & Sessions Judge (HQs) Central, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi 24.06.2020 CR no. 365/2019 Deepak Kumar vs. State Page 7 of 7 pages