Delhi District Court
Deepak vs Smt. Priya Aatre on 6 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 375/2022
CNR No.: DLCT01-009870-2022
Deepak
S/o Sh. Pushpraj Sharma
R/o 31/6A-2 Block, near Sant Hospital,
West Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi-110084
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Smt. Priya Aatre
(Teacher of S.C.V.R.I.T.I., Dheerpur,
Delhi-110009)
2. Deepak
3. Shameer
4. Mohit
5. Lakshya
6. Angad
7. Ankit
8. Kartik
9. Ajay Phogat
10. Kapila
11. Khushi
All students of S.C.V.R.I.T.I, Dheerpur,
Delhi-110009
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.07.2022
Date of Arguments : 05.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 06.07.2022
JUDGMENT
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 1 of 12
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against an order dated 04.04.2022 (In short 'the impugned order') in complaint case vide Case No. 5711/2020 titled as 'Deepak vs. Priya Aatre & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') dismissed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to SHO, PS Timarpur to register FIR against the respondents.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Section 323/325/341/ 374/377/506/34 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC') on averments that the petitioner is a student of 'Interior Designing Decoration' in Sir C.V. Raman Industrial Training Institute, Dheepur, Delhi-110009. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 was his class teacher and she forced him bring meal from market, broom the classroom and clean the toilet. On his refusal, the respondent No. 1 punished him by directing him to stand outside classroom as well as on bench. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 to 11 physically assaulted him, on instruction of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 to 11 opened his trouser and made him naked and committed wrong with him.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 2 of 12
3. According to the petitioner, the said incident had taken place in the month of February / March, 2020. He reported the incident to the respondent No. 1. However, she has not paid any attention. The respondent No. 2 to 11 beaten him, at least, two times before the respondent No. 1 in his class. The respondent No. 1 slapped him. The respondent No. 2 to 11 beaten him mercilessly and caused internal injury to his chest and head. He did not disclose the same incident as the respondents had threatened him that he will be eliminated. The petitioner's condition deteriorated and he informed his parents. He was examined in Emergency in Hindu Rao Hospital on 21.04.2020. Examining Medical Officer prescribed him some medicines. However, he could not get any relief. The petitioner again went to Hindu Rao Hospital but he was not examined in Emergency on the pretext that it was a police case. The concerned doctor instructed him to go to GTB Hospital where he was examined vide MLC dated 23.04.2020. Examining Medical Officer, GTB Hospital referred him to IHBAS. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the institute. However, the institute did not take any action. The petitioner lodged a complaint with DCP (North) and ACP, Timarpur on 04.06.2020 and 05.06.2020 respectively. He lodged a complaint with Principal of the said institute on 30.06.2020. The petitioner again sent a complaint to DCP (North) on 10.09.2020. However, local police did not register FIR. Therefore, the petitioner filed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 3 of 12 ACTION TAKEN REPORT:
4. On being directed, ASI Bhushan, PS Timarpur submitted status report on 04.01.2021, as under:
"During enquiry, on 25/04/2020, statement of the complainant / applicant Mr. Deepak was recorded. As per MLC, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 15/03/2020, but no specific date is disclosed by the complainant in his statement dt. 25/04/2020 & complaint GC No.218/SHO/TP dt. 06/06/2020. In this regard, enquiry was made from ITI officials i.e. Vice Principal, Class Teacher, they told that the working of institute was suspended w.e.f. 13/03/2020 for students and it was completely closed w.e.f. 19/03/2020 (ITI document attached). As per the enquiry report of ITI Dheerpur, no such incident took place in the institute (Report Attached). They also told that the attendance of Deepak are short, hence a notice to his parents was also sent in this regard. After that notice, he started making complaints (Report Attached).
It is further submitted the gist of complaint No. GC No. 218/SHO/TP dt. 06/06/2020, statement & MLC are not corroborative.
During enquiry, statements of the students (23 students) of the classroom and other students have been recorded. Summarily as per their statements, no such incident is found to have taken place and it has surfaced that the complainant Deepak is a habitual absentee and misbehaved with other students and teachers. The complainant is not beaten by anyone in the institute.
Strenuous efforts were made to enquiry the allegations such as many telephonically calls were made to the complainant to join the enquiry, but father of the complainant, Mr. Pushpraj and complainant Deepak himself not co-operate in the enquiry.
The opinion on MLC of the injured Deepak has been obtained which is 'simple'.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 4 of 12 In the above context, it is submitted that allegations levelled by the complainant through various modes i.e. MLC, statement and complaint are not specific in nature and the attitude of the complainant & his father is not cooperative. The local complaint has been filed under the above mentioned facts and circumstances."
IMPUGNED ORDER:
5. Relevant part of the impugned order is as under:
"Action taken report in the matter was called. Detailed action taken reports were filed by ASI Bhushan. Upon inquiry by ASI Bhushan, it came to light that the working of institute where the applicant studied was suspended w.e.f. 13.03.2020 for students and the institute completely closed on 19.03.2020. From local inquiry, the EO concluded that the incidents of classroom cleaning, toilet cleaning by the applicant and being forced to bring food from outside as well as of his pant being removed did not occur in the institute. One of the incident is alleged to be of 15.03.2020 but the institute closed for students on 13.03.2020. It came to light that the attendance of the applicant was short and he was extremely irregular in attending classes. The EO recorded statements of no less than 23 students of institute most of them were classmates of the applicant who all stated that the applicant was a habitual absentee who regularly misbehaved with other students, classmates as well as with teachers. The report on the MLC of the applicant conducted at GTB Hospital dated 28.04.2020 mentions simple injury. Considering the detailed inquiry conducted b y police into the serious allegations made by the applicant, the allegations have been found to be false, baseless and concocted. Commission of no cognizable offence whatsoever is disclosed when the entire material placed on record by the applicant as well as the enquiry officer is read as a whole. Accordingly, application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant is dismissed being devoid of merit. Now to come up for consideration on complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2022."
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 5 of 12 GROUNDS OF REVISION:
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision petition on grounds, as under:
(a) The trial Court passed the impugned order on conjectures and surmises;
(b) The trial Court did not apply judicial mind and considered serious allegations made in the complaint;
(c) The trial Court did not consider that Action Taken Report was filed without making proper enquiry to protect the respondents;
(d) The trial Court did not consider that neither enquiry report nor statements of the witnesses forming basis of Action Taken Report provided to the petitioner;
(e) The trial Court did not consider that the petitioner did not mention the date of incident and it wrongly relied upon date of incident as 15.03.2020, as mentioned in MLC;
(f) The trial Court was influenced by wrong date of the incident mentioned in MLC dated 23.04.2020;
(g) The trial Court did not consider that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and investigation of allegations made in the complaint was required;
(h) The trial Court committed an error in observing that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence; and
(i) The trial Court passed the impugned order in undue haste and arbitrarily.
APPEARANCE:
7. I have heard Mr. Kamal Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and examined trial Court record.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 6 of 12 CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not mention date of incident in his complaint. He contended that in MLC dated 23.04.2020, Casualty Medical Officer mentioned wrong date of the incident as 15.03.2020. He contended that the trial Court was influenced by the said date and Action Taken Report that functioning of the institute was suspended w.e.f. 13.03.2020. He contended that the petitioner made serious allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences. He contended that MLC dated 23.04.2020 disclosed that the petitioner had 'head injury'. He contended that the petitioner made serious allegations pertaining to sexual harassment and physical assault. He contended that the trial Court was influenced by the fact that the petitioner was an absentee and his attendance were short. He contended that the institute never communicated the petitioner or his parents that attendance of the petitioner were short. He contended that there is no complaint regarding misbehaviour of the petitioner. He contended that Enquiry Officer (EO) submitted Action Taken Report (ATR) under influence of the respondents. He contended that Enquiry Officer has not conducted proper enquiry into allegations made by the petitioner. He contended that there is need of police investigation into serious allegations made by the petitioner. He contended that the impugned order should be set-
aside and local police be directed to register FIR and investigate the case.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 7 of 12 ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
9. The trial Court did not issue direction to register FIR on following grounds:
(a) Working of the institute was suspended w.e.f.
13.03.2020 and it was closed on 29.03.2020;
(b) No such incident of brooming, toileting cleaning or removal of trouser of the petitioner had taken place;
(c) The incident allegedly taken place on 15.03.2020 whereas the institute was closed on 13.03.2020;
(d) Attendance of the petitioner were short and he was irregular in attending his classes;
(e) Statements of the 23 students would show that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and he misbehaved with his classmates and teachers;
(f) MLC dated 23.04.2020 depict 'simple' injury; and
(g) Material on record do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence.
DISCUSSION:
10. On careful examination of the trial Court record, it is seen that the petitioner made allegations against the respondent No. 1 that she used to ask him to bring meal from outside and broom the classroom and clean the toilet. The said allegations do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 to 11 physically assaulted him at the instance of the respondent No. 1. The said allegations also do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 8 of 12
11. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 to 11 caused injury to his head and chest.
MLC dated 23.04.2020 disclose swelling in occipital region. This is a case of simple hurt. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 to 11 opened his trouser and committed wrong with him. However, he has not stated the nature of wrong to which he was subjected to. The entire allegations made by the petitioner are quite general. Perusal of ATR and accompanying documents would show that the petitioner was quite irregular in attending his classes and his attendance was short, as mentioned in letter dated 27.02.2020.
12. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed: (SCC p. 711, para 11)
11. "The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyad case examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge / Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156 (3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 9 of 12 The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari."
13. The allegations levelled by the petitioner do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.
14. A direction for registration of FIR cannot be issued mechanically, without applying judicial mind to facts and circumstances of the case.
15. The trial Court has jurisdiction to apply its judicial mind to facts and circumstances of the case while dealing with an application seeking registration of FIR.
16. In the present case, the trial Court rightly applied its judicial mind and declined prayer for registration of FIR. CONCLUSION:
17. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 10 of 12
18. TCR alongwith copy of judgment be sent back to trial Court. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.07.06 16:04:19 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 06th July, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 11 of 12 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. CNR No.: DLCT010098702022 Crl. Revision No. 375/2022 06.07.2022 Present : Mr. Kamal Pundir, Advocate with Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.07.06
16:04:34 +0530
Sanjay SharmaII
ASJ03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
NK 06.07.2022
Crl. Rev. No. 375/2022 Deepak vs. Smt. Priya Aatre & Ors. Page No. 12 of 12