Delhi District Court
Sh. Baljeet Singh vs Sanjay Kumar on 25 January, 2017
Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 57427/16
Sh. Baljeet Singh
R/o C12F, Vijeta Vihar,
Sector13, Rohini, Delhi85. ....Revisionist
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar
R/o C12S, Vijeta Vihar,
Sector13, Rohini, Delhi85.
2. Mrs. Kavita Singh
W/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar
R/o C12S, Vijeta Vihar,
Sector13, Rohini, Delhi85.
3. Inspector Sudhir Kumar Saxena,
The then SHO/Police Station
Prashant Vihar.
4. ASI Balkishan,
P.S Prashant Vihar,
5. State.
....Respondents
Date of Institution : 10.02.2016 Date on which Order was reserved: 12.01.2017 Date on which Order pronounced : 25.01.2017 O R D E R:
1. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 14.12.2015 (herein Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 1 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 after called the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby Ld. Magistrate has ordered the concerned SHO of PS Prashant Vihar to conduct enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC and to submit his report before the Court in complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC bearing C.C No. 81/3/10 filed by petitioner, he has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the petitioner/complainant averred in the complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC that he is residing in Flat No. C12/F situated on first floor whereas respondents no. 1 & 2 herein are residing in flat no. C12/S situated on second floor of the same building. The flat of said respondents is situated just above the flat of petitioner. The said respondents damaged flooring of their second floor and also carried out extensive unauthorised construction/renovation work in the said flat thereby endangering his life and safety. Written complaints were lodged with the then SHO PS Prashant Vihar and ultimately, FIR no. 240/07 U/s 336 IPC was registered at PS Prashant Vihar on 18.04.2007. The said respondents got lodged false FIR no. 740/07 U/s 354/509 IPC against him as counter blast to the previous FIR. He further claimed that on 25.03.2009, his telephone connection number 27563158 was found dead. On complaint being lodged with Telephone Exchange on 26.03.2009, line man/mechanic visited the premises on 27.03.2009 and informed that someone had cut the telephone wire at stair cases. On the same day at about 6.30 pm or so, phone connection again became dead. On checking, the petitioner/complainant found that telephone line was again cut from the same place. Consequently, he lodged police complaint dated 27.03.2009 vide DD no. 33A. He further averred that on 05.04.2009, Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 2 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 water supply in his house was very low and water tank was emptying quickly. On 10.04.2007, plumber checked the water tank situated on terrace and found that inlet valve/stop cock of overhead water tank was closed. The said plumber informed the petitioner that there seem to be mischief on the part of some person. He advised the petitioner to install plug in place of inlet valve/stop cock. Accordingly, plug was installed by the plumber. The petitioner had also lodged complaint dated 10.04.2009 vide DD no. 21A in PS. On 25.04.2009, drain pipe of the flat of petitioner/complainant was blocked. The petitioner and his family members called mistri namely Harish Chand who went to terrace for replacement of sheet lid of the overhead tank. At that time, the petitioner and his family members noticed that both the antennas installed on the terrace, were removed and only central mounting rod affixed in wall, was there. Petitioner again lodged complaint in this regard in PS raising suspicion over respondents no. 1 & 2 about their involvement in the above mentioned illegal acts and mischief. The petitioner also averred that said two respondents unauthorisedly installed iron door on the roof and kept the key in their exclusive possession in order to compel him to sell off his flat and to leave the society.
3. The petitioner led pre summoning evidence before trial Court, whereafter arguments on the point of summoning were heard by Ld Magistrate who passed the impugned order thereby directing SHO concerned to conduct enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC and to file the report before him. While issuing said direction, Ld trial Court has observed in the impugned order that no public witness was examined by complainant to prove the sole possession of respondents no. 1 & 2 on terrace and in order Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 3 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 to reach at any conclusion, it is necessary that enquiry be conducted from local residents to ascertain the status of possession of terrace at the relevant time.
4. The impugned order has been assailed by petitioner on various grounds as mentioned in the revision petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of passing order on the point of summoning, Ld Magistrate issued directions to concerned SHO for conducting U/s 202 Cr.PC without any justifiable ground and without furnishing any cogent reason for issuing said direction.
5. While opening the arguments, Ld counsel of petitioner vehemently argued that specific averments have been made by petitioner in complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC that the police officials were in hand in glove with respondents no. 1 & 2. He referred to all the relevant instances as quoted by petitioner/respondent not only in complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC but also in the present revision petition, in order to bring home his point that even senior police officers of the rank of DCP and Joint C.P had been protecting these two respondents and that is why, no action was taken by police on the police complaints lodged by petitioner in PS Prashant Vihar but still, Magistrate has issued direction to police authority for conducting enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC. He argued that trial Court totally overlooked all the relevant facts and pleas raised by petitioner before it, while passing the impugned order. He further argued that petitioner has already closed pre summoning evidence and has already filed all the relevant documents on record and there is no requirement for getting any enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC conducted from the police. Even otherwise, the Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 4 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 police authority is not going to conduct any fair enquiry in this case as they are in active connivance with respondents no. 1 and 2. He therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be setaside.
6. Ld. Counsel of respondents no. 1 and 2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order by arguing that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Court of Magistrate. He submitted that Court has limited scope of interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. He further argued that no document or evidence has been placed on record by petitioner in support of the allegations made by him before the Court and respondents no. 1 and 2 cannot be blamed for inaction, if any, on the part of police. He further submitted that said respondents have nothing to do with the alleged acts and also claimed that petitioner himself has retired from the post of ACP from Delhi Police. Thus, he cannot be allowed to raise the plea that police authority is acting in connivance with the respondents. He therefore, urged that revision petition should be dismissed.
7. Ld. Additional PP appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5/State submitted that appropriate order as may be deemed fit in the given facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed by the Court as it is a complaint case filed by petitioner/complainant against respondents no. 1 and 2 and no relief has been claimed against State.
8. Respondents no. 3 and 4 did not come forward to advance arguments before the Court despite being put to notice. Thus, Court did not have the privilege of hearing their submissions in the present reivision Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 5 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 petition.
9. I have already heard Sh. Mandeep Walia Adv on behalf of petitioner/revisionist, Sh. Puspendhu Shukla Adv on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sh. Pankaj Bhatia Ld Additional PP on behalf of respondent no. 5/State. I have also gone through the material available on record including trial Court record summoned in the present revision petition.
10. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the sides, it may be noted here that petitioner has made several prayers in the present revision petition including the prayer for summoning respondents no. 1 and 2 for offences punishable U/s 448/341/342/380/430/120B IPC read with Section 201/166/167/177/ 217/218/219 IPC as also for offence punishable U/s 25 of Indian Telegraph Act and also for Contempt of Court punishable U/s 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. However, these reliefs cannot be considered by this Court, in the backdrop of the fact that matter is subjudice before the Court of Magistrate who has yet not passed any order on the point of summoning of respondents no. 1 and 2 and/or any other person as an accused in the case. In the impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court, trial Court instead of passing order on the point of summoning, has issued direction to concerned SHO for conducting enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC and to submit the report before it. Hence, the Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner to enlarge the scope of reliefs to the extent mentioned herein above.
Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 6 of 9Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017
11. As already observed above, it is throughout the case of petitioner/complainant before trial Court that the police officials not only upto the rank of SHO but even senior police officers of the rank of DCP and Joint C.P. are favouring respondents no. 1 and 2 in their alleged acts disclosed in various paras of complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC. Not only this, the petitioner/complainant has also referred to specific instances, in support of his contention that there was total inaction on the part of police authority on various police complaints lodged by him at PS Preashant Vihar as well as with senior police officers from time to time. He had also filed all those relevant police complaints by making them annexures alongwith complaint case. Still, Ld. Magistrate, in his wisdom, preferred to issue direction to concerned SHO of PS Prashant Vihar for conducting enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC. It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that justice should not only be done but also seems to have been done. Court fails to understand as to when the petitioner/complainant had categorically alleged before Ld Magistrate that respondents no. 1 and 2 are enjoying protective umbrella of senior police officers in their alleged illegal acts, what made Ld Magistrate to issue direction for conducting enquiry through police only. At this juncture, it may be noted that Section 202 Cr.PC empowers Magistrate either to enquire into the case himself or to direct investigation to be made by police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the proposed accused. In other words, the said prevision clearly empowers the Magistrate to get such an enquiry, if at all necessary, to be conducted through any other person.
12. Be that as it may, the question arises as to whether there was Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 7 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 any necessity to get the enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC conducted in this matter or not. The answer, in the opinion of this Court, has to be in negative. The reasons are quite obvious. Out of several illegal acts allegedly committed by respondents no. 1 & 2, Ld Magistrate deemed necessary to get enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the status of possession of terrace of the building during the relevant time by conducting enquiry from local residents. It is relevant to note that before doing so, Ld Magistrate himself has observed in concluding para of the impugned order that it is an admitted position on record that terrace was common to all residents. Thereafter, Ld Magistrate seems to have fallen into error by taking the view that since sole possession of respondents no. 1 and 2 is under scrutiny, it is necessary that enquiry be conducted from local residents to ascertain status of possession of terrace at the relevant time. While forming the said opinion, it skipped from the notice of trial Court that status report had been previously filed by concerned SHO before it at the initial stage, wherein it was mentioned that no independent witness met or gave any statement to the police with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner/complainant. It cannot be overlooked that the alleged incident took place during the year 2009. The impugned order has been passed in the year 2015. There is nothing on record to show that the nearby premises/houses are presently occupied by the same residents who were residing there even in the year 2009. That being so, it is not clear as to how enquiry, if any, to be made by police from local residents who are presently in occupation of nearby houses, would be of any help to Ld. Magistrate in finding out the issue of sole possession of respondents no. 1 & 2 over the terrace. Moreover, it is the case of petitioner/complainant himself that he has already filed the photographs of Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 8 of 9 Criminal Revision No.57427/16 D.O.D.: 25.01.2017 the lock appearing on door of the terrace of the building.
13. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the relevant portion of the impugned order whereby Ld. Magistrate has issued direction to concerned SHO of PS Prashant Vihar for conducting enquiry U/s 202 Cr.PC and to file the report before him, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby setaside and matter is remanded back to trial Court/Successor Court with direction to decide the issue of summoning of respondents after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/complainant, in accordance with law. Revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order . File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
On 25.01.2017 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts/Delhi.
Baljeet Singh Vs. Sanjay & Ors. Page 9 of 9