Delhi District Court
Shri Amit Babbar vs The State (Govt. Of N.C.T.) Delhi on 16 January, 2008
Crl Rev No. 149/07 1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI H.S.SHARMA, ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, DELHI.
Crl Rev. 149/07
1. Shri Amit Babbar
S/o Shri Kimti Babbar
R/o 4/13, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Shri Gurmeet Singh Nanda
S/o Late Shri Hardev Singh Nanda,
R/o 25/36 Third Cloor,
East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Shri Manmeet Singh
S/o Shri Balwant Singh
R/o 26/51 West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi ............... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State (Govt. of N.C.T.) Delhi .............Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.12.2007
Date of receipt of this case in this Court : 10.12.2007
Date of Arguments : 15.01.2008
Date of Decision : 16.01.2008
Shri Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.K.Tanwar, Addl.P.P for the state/respondent.
ORDER
This revision is directed against the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the Ld. M.M. Delhi vide which the prayer of the petitioners to send their complaint U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C., had been dismissed.
Crl Rev No. 149/07 2
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and have perused copy of the Impugned Order.
3. Ld Counsel for the petitioners has relied on Indian Oil Corporation Vs M/s N.E.P.C. India 2006 III AD (Crl.) 202, M/s Medchl Chemicals and Pharama Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Biological E. Ltd. 2000 (Crl.J) 1987, Rajesh Bajaj Vs State 1999 Cr.L.J 1833 and Ajit Gupta Vs State 2007 III AD (Crl) (DHC) 321. I have gone through these judgments. These judgments cannot be applied to the controversy in hand. I repeat that the Ld. Trial Court had not formed any opinion regarding the question as to whether any offence is made out or not. The Ld. Trial Court had simply rejected the prayer of the petitioners to send the complaint U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station to investigate the matter after registering the FIR. The matter had been fixed by the Ld. Trial Court for recording evidence of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners claim that the accused had played a fraud on them by claiming that he was owner of the property in dispute. The petitioners will be at liberty to substantiate their allegations by examining themselves as witnesses and producing the Agreement to Sell. It is now well settled that the Court cannot be insisted upon to send the complaint U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. Reliance can be placed Crl Rev No. 149/07 3 on Rashmi Vs SHO 2002 V A.D. (Delhi) 182. Similarly, in Skipper Beverages Vs. State 2001 IV A.D. (Delhi) 625 our own Hon'ble High Court has held that if the complainant is in possession of evidence and he can substantiate the same without assistance of the police, the refusal by the Magistrate to send the complaint U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. would be justified.
5. I am deliberately not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners. The revision is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 29.01.2008. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (H.S.SHARMA) On this day of 16th January,2008 ASJ/DELHI All pages signed