Delhi District Court
Ravinder Pal Singh vs Charanjeet Singh on 30 August, 2024
Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 423/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-006083-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Ravinder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Chhabra,
R/o 28/24, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Charanjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Chhabra,
R/o T-29-I, Baljeet Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
2. Tajinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Chhabra,
R/o 28/24, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
3. Inderjeet Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh Chhabra, Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30
17:13:01
+0530
CR No. 423/2023 Page No.1 of 39
Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
R/o 28/24, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
4. SHO, Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
5. CMO,
Lady Hardinge College and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital,
New Delhi
6. CMO
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
New Delhi .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 26/07/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 14/08/2024
Date of judgment : 30/08/2024
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionist against the order dated 30/06/2023 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Ruby Neeraj Kumar, Ld. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:13:28 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.2 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
ACMM, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in complaint case No. 598/2022, PS Patel Nagar, titled as " Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors." thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant (revisionist herein) was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to call and examine the Trial Court record and to set-aside the impugned order dated 30/06/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to pass the direction to review the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionist had filed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and without considering the facts and circumstances, the said application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 30/06/2023. All the respondents are threatening the revisionist since his childhood. Revisionist is an unmarried person and residing in one room and he used to work as water supplier. The revisionist has no talking terms with his mother and brothers despite that he has been harassed. Despite making number of complaints since the year 2014, no action has been taken by the police officials. The respondents with malafide intention had committed the offence of intimidation, defamation, beating and injuring the revisionist and they in furtherance of their pre-planned conspiracy forced the revisionist to commit Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:13:43 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.3 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
illegal work for which, they are liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law. The complaints of the complainant (revisionist) disclosed the cognizable and non-bailable offence. Vide order dated 21/05/2022, passed by the Ld. Trial Court, SHO/IO PS Patel Nagar were directed to file status report but no report was filed till 29/06/2022. SHO/IO, PS Patel Nagar had filed the false status report before the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. without considering the previous orders, complaint and false status report. All record are kept by the revisionist. The offence committed by the accused are serious in nature and cognizable. In case of complaint of assaut, FIR is necessary on the complaint of victim/complainant. Ld. Trial Court has not considered the law and misused its discretionary power arbitrarily. The impugned order is unjustified and bad in law. IO had filed the false status report without following the due process of law. False status report has been filed with ulterior motive. Impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court be set-aside and SHO be directed to register an FIR in appropriate provisions of law.
3. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Ld. Trial Court has failed to understand the facts and circumstances and has dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. without using its discretion. Ld. Trial Court Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:13:54 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.4 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
has failed to understand that offence are cognizable in nature. Ld. Trial Court has failed to understand the facts as SHO/IO, PS Patel Nagar has filed the false status report. Ld. Trial Court has failed to understand that statutory body with ulterior motive is giving relaxation to the offenders, due to which, they are assaulting the revisionist despite complaints.
4. The respondents no. 1 to 3 have contested the present revision petition of the revisionist by filing detailed reply, wherein they denied the contents of the present revision petition and prayed for dismissal of the same with cost.
It is mentioned in the reply that the the revisionist has misused the process of law and filed the frivolous petition against his mother and brothers without any cause and incident. The revisionist has intentionally filed various criminal and civil cases against his family members. No incident has occurred with the revisionist. The revisionist want to harass his family members by filing frivolous case against them.
5. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by the revisionist and counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Perused the material available on record.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, vide order dated 14/08/2024 passed by this Court, opportunity of the respondent no. 4, 5 & 6 to argue the matter was closed. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:14:03 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.5 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the revisionist that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3 that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The revisionist in support of his contentions has relied upon case law following case law:-
1. Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others. {(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1}
2. Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State {2010 SCC OnLine Del 2324}
3. Appabhai Vs. State of Gujrat" AIR 1988 SC 696
4. Raghubir Singh Vs. State of UP {AIR 1971 SC 2156}
6. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 30/06/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"30.06.2023 Vide order No.4629-4640/G-1/GAZ./DHC/2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. CMM has been promoted as DHJS and therefore, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:14:13 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.6 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
undersigned is looking after the Administrative work as well.
Present: Complainant in person.
Arguments on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C heard.
Put up for orders today itself at 4:00 p.m. (RUBY NEERAJ KUMAR) ACMM(WEST)/THC/DELHI 30.06.2023/m At 4:00 p.m. Present: None.
1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the Complainant in the instant case.
2. Brief facts of the case as elucidated in the complaint are that the alleged accused no.1 & 2 are brother and alleged accused no.3 is the mother of the Complainant. It is alleged that accused no.1 & 2 often harass & beat the Complainant and at their instance, accused no.3 often threaten to throw the Complainant out of the house. Allegedly, on 20.04.2022, accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:14:23 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.7 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
no.1 & 2 again gave beatings to the Complainant due to which, he suffered injury.
3. Consequently, Complainant made complaint against the accused persons to the SHO as well as DCP concerned but the police neither lodged the FIR nor took any action against the accused persons. Hence, the present application.
4. On filing of the present application, status report was called from the SHO concerned wherein, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties pertains to property and it is civil in nature. Thus, no cognizable offence is made out.
5. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and carefully perused the record.
6. Before proceeding further it would be apposite to refer to the law laid down by the higher courts with respect to provision under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
7. In M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:14:34 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.8 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
v. State, 2001 (92) DLT 217, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
"7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the Complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass order under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the Complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand and the police should step in to help the Complainant.
10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those cases where the same are warranted. The section empower the Magistrate to issue directions in this regard but this provision should not be permitted to be misused by the Complainants to get police cases registered even in those cases which are not very serious in nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required. Therefore, a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:14:48 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.9 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
mere asking by the Complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of Complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact."
8. In Mohd. Salim v. State 175 (2010) DLT 473, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
"The use of expression 'may' in sub section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of an cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does not require investigation by the police and can be proved by the Complainant himself, without any assistance from the police. In that case, he may, instead of directing investigation by the police, straight away take cognizance of the alleged offence and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the Complainant and his witnesses, if any. Infact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the assistance of the investigating agency is necessary and the court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:14:58 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.10 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
investigation by the state machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the court can straight away proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the police Under Section 156 (3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation of which can not be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the state machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police. The Magistrate is therefore, not supposed to act merely as a post office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the police."
9. Scheme of Cr.P.C and law laid down by the higher courts makes it amply clear that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised after due application of mind and not in mechanical or routine manner. Further, registration of FIR/ investigation should be directed where the evidence is beyond the reach of the Complainant or the custodial interrogation is necessary. Prima facie, no cognizable offence appears to have been committed. Further, the Complainant is well aware of all the facts & circumstances and all the material/ evidence required to prove the allegations levelled against Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:15:10 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.11 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
the accused persons are well within his knowledge & control. Moreover, the identity of the accused persons is also not disputed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C stands dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, Complainant is given one opportunity to prove his case by leading pre-summoning evidence.
11. Accordingly, put up for pre- summoning evidence on 12.10.2023.
12. Expression of any opinion herein- above shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
(RUBY NEERAJ KUMAR) ACMM (WEST)/THC/DELHI 30.06/2023/m"
7. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:15:21 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.12 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
8. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:15:29 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.13 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not anDigitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:15:39 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.14 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
9. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr." {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub- section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:15:52 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.15 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:01 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.16 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order.
In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:10 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.17 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. Vs. Fazru"
{(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus: "An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:21 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.18 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:31 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.19 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:41 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.20 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11) "11. ..... It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:50 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.21 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:16:59 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.22 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
titled as " Neelam Mahajan and Anr. Vs. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
10. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 30/06/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant was dismissed. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:17:11 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.23 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr." {WP (CRL 1253/2016 and Crl. MA No.6591/2016 decided on 10/01/2017} that "therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable".
Hence, the present revision petition qua the dismissal of the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
11. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision petition on merits.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 30/06/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant was dismissed.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss law relating to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The scheme of Cr.P.C. is such that an Officer In-charge of a Police Station has to initiate investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the first information report, on receiving the information of the commission of a cognizable offence. From the plain reading of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., it is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is made before an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:17:21 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.24 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form to register a case on the basis of information pertaining to cognizable offence. But when the police officers do not register a case disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and complaint in this regard is made to the Magistrate, then under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. ' may ' order investigation. The expression used herein is ' may ' and not ' shall ' or ' must '. The expression ' shall ' or ' must' implies that the provision is mandatory and expression ' may ' gives discretion to the Magistrate.
In this regard, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Devarapalli Lakshinarayana Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors." {AIR 1976 SC 1672} that:-
"It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words " may take cognizance" which in the context in which they occur cannot be equated with "must take cognizance". The word " may " gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:17:31 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.25 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
This raises the incidental question: What is meant by "taking cognizance of an offence" by a Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190? This expression has not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and marginal heading of Section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The ways in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted and the nature of the preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:17:40 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.26 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State {2001 IV AD (DELHI) 625} that :-
"A Magistrate must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.'' It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:17:50 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.27 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
titled as Gulab Chand Upadhyaya V. State of U.P. {2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 514} that :-
"The scheme of Cr. P. C. and the prevailing circumstances require that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised. Where some "investigation" is required which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant, and which can only be done by the police upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, for example:-
1 Where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or 2 Where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or 3 Where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence is required to be collected and preserved. To illustrate by example, cases may be visualized where for production before court at the trial (a) Sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident, or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed, or (c) recovery under Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2024.08.30 17:17:59 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.28 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, or
(d) preparation of inquest report, or
(e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Pawan Verma Vs. SHO, PS Model Town & Ors." {2009(2) JCC 1000 Delhi}, that:-
"It is not that in every case merely on the asking of the petitioner the Court must direct registration of an FIR unless the Court is satisfied with the preliminary evidence which is to be submitted by the complainant with an FIR must be registered..........".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Mohd Salim Vs. State" {175(2010) DLT 473} that :-
"The use of the expression may in Sub- section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:18:10 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.29 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does not require investigation by the Police and can be proved by the complainant himself, without any assistance from the Police. In that case, he may, instead of directing investigation by the Police, straightaway take cognizance of the alleged offence and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses, if any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the Police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the police under section 156(3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation of which cannot be undertaken without active Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:18:20 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.30 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Mohd. Yusuf Khan Vs. State & Anr." {2014 (3) JCC 1665} that :-
"The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in a routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set into motion on the mere asking of a party.....'' It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Kusum Lata Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {Crl. MC No.1880/2020 decided on 19/04/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"it is clear from the scheme of section 156, where the police fail in its duty to register and investigate a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person may file a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:18:33 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.31 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Where the Magistrate receives a complaint the word 'may' give a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. Two courses are open to the Court; either take cognizance under Section 190 or may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, Magistrate may take cognizance on the basis of the complaint instituted before him and may adopt the procedure provided under sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. and if there is no substance in the prima facie evidence adduced by the complainant, the complaint may be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
In view of above facts, observation made by the courts below and the law discussed, the material facts of the present case are well within the knowledge of the petitioner including the identity of the accused persons. Hence, she can establish her case while leading evidence before the trial court under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellant Court".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Anjuri Kumari Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {WP (CRL) 1210/2023 and CRL. M.A.11298/2023 decided on 29/11/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:18:43 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.32 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
"In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the directions for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code cannot be given by the Magistrate mechanically. Such a direction can be given only on application of mind by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. Each case has to be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved therein. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police. In the present case, all the facts and evidence are within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can adduce during the inquiry conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code."
12. Revisionist in support of his contentions has relied upon the case law titled as Lalita Kumari (supra).
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:18:52 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.33 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
After referring the Lalita Kumari case (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat" { AIR 2015 SC 1742} that :-
"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:
11. The scope of Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case : (2008) 5 SCC 668] 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:19:01 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.34 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 (supra).
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that the direction Under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under Para 120.6 in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:19:12 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.35 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
Lalita Kumari (supra) may fall Under Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case."
13. The criminal complaint of the complainant/ revisionist u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. is pending before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the ATR filed by SI Bajrang before the Ld. Trial Court, it is mentioned that "An enquiry into the matter has been conducted which revealed that the complainant has visited to the police station on that day, but he had not sustained any external injuries as well. He had stated that he was harassed by his mother and his brother. He was asked to submit his written complaint but he did not give any complaint to the SI Rajvir Singh. Moreover, the statement of the complainant Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh has also been recorded (attached herewith) which revealed that there is a property dispute between the complainant and his real brothers and his mother over the said property, which is purely civil in nature. No cognizable offence is made. Therefore, in view of inquiry conducted so far, allegations levelled in the present complaint could not be substantiated. No cognizable offence is made out."
It is the contention of the revisionist that he has been threatened and beaten by the respondent no. 1 to 3. In the present Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:19:23 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.36 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
revision petition as well as complaint case before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist/complainant has not filed any medical document to show that he has sustained any injury.
Revisionist and respondent no. 1 to 3 are stated to be family members. Revisionist is stated to be brother of the respondent no. 1 & 2 and son of the respondent no.3. In view of the above, it is clear that the parties are ascertained. The facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the revisionist/complainant. There is nothing for which the police assistance is additionally necessary to be called for. The revisionist/ complainant is in a position to lead evidence in the matter. The evidence is within the reach of revisionist/complainant and no custodial interrogation of accused is necessary for recovery of article or discovery of fact.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that vide impugned order dated 30/06/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant/revisionist was dismissed and the matter was fixed for pre-summoning evidence. The complainant/revisionist in pre-summoning evidence had examined himself as CW-1.
Vide order dated 20/03/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, order on summoning was passed and it is mentioned in the order dated 20/03/2024 that "Material on record prima facie suggest that the complainant has been able to make out the prima facie case of commission of offence punishable u/s 323 IPC against the accused Charanjeet Singh as there are specific Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:19:34 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.37 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
allegations against the said accused of his having hit the complainant on his face and of beating him and pulling the complainant by hair. However, nothing is brought on record to prima facie suggest that proposed accused persons had conspired to cause hurt to the complainant or to commit any other offence. Further, there are no allegations for commission of offence under 341/503/504/506 IPC. Accordingly, no case is made out against the remaining respondents. In view of the above, accused Charanjeet Singh be summoned u/s 323 IPC on filing of PF by the complainant within seven days from today, for 01.05.2024."
15. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the case laws relied upon by the revisionist, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the Digitally merits of the case. signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:19:48 +0530 CR No. 423/2023 Page No.38 of 39 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2024.08.30 17:19:56 Announced in the open Court +0530 on 30/08/2024 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 423/2023 Page No.39 of 39