Delhi District Court
Neera Sharma vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 25 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010017782024
Cr Rev/101/2024
NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND
ORS.
Neera Sharma
D/o V. K Maini
R/o A-10, Lajpat Nagar
Third Floor, (R.H.S)
New Delhi-24 ....... REVISIONIST
Vs.
1. State of NCT of Delhi
2. Shri Rana
Then SHO Malviya Nagar Police Station
Block A, Shivalik Colony, Rashid Road,
New Delhi-110017
3. Shri Gulab Singh, ASI
Block A, Shivalik Colony, Rashi Road,
Malviya Nagar Police station
4. Athar Singh, ASI
Malviya Nagar Police Station
Block A, Shivalik Colony, Rashid Road,
New Delhi-110017
5. Shri Jagdesh ASI PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Malviya Nagar Police Station Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.01.25
17:20:36 +0530
Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 1 of 15
Block A, Shivalik Colony, Rashid Raod.
New Delhi-110017
6. Shri O. P. Tyagi,
Malviya Nagar Police Station.
Block A, Shivalik Colony, Rashid Road,
New Delhi-110017
7. Harkesh Meena,
Then Officer, Vigilance District Cell South,
New Delhi.
8. Sh. Atul Kumar (Deleted)
(Former) DCP South
9. Chander Prabha
W/o Surinder Pal Chadha
R/o P-3, Second Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
10. Saurabh Chadha
S/o Surinder Pal Chadha
R/o P-3, Second Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
11. Deepika Seth
W/o Saurabh Chadha
R/o P-3, Second Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
12. Surinder Pal Chadha
R/o P-3, Second Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
13. Kavita Khanna
D/o Surinder Pal Chadha
R/o P-3, Second Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi ....... RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 2 of 15 2025.01.25
17:20:39
+0530
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.03.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 09.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 25.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant petition under Section 397 of Cr.
P.C., revisionist take exception to an order dated 08.11.2023 passed by Ld. MM-02, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in case bearing CT no. 1705/2022, titled as 'Neera Sharma Vs. Shri Rana and Ors.' whereby Ld. Magistrate has declined to direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. The factual position has been noted by the Ld. Trial Court in following manner:-
"Succinctly, the case of the complainant is that alleged no.1 conspired while investigating her case; implicated her in a false case i.e. FIR no. 494/21 and provoked her relatives i.e. alleged no. 8 to 12 to register a false case. The complainant alleges that on 11.08.2021, she went to her aunt's house i.e. P3, 2nd floor, Malviya Nagar to discuss some family issues where she was physically assaulted, molested and harassed by alleged no 8 to 11. She further submits that she called the police and on the same day, she was taken to the hospital for her MLC and later, IO O.P. Tyagi came to the hospital and made her write the complaint and the IO did not provide her copy of MLC even after request. As per the complainant, she was taken to police booth where the IO also called the opposite party to get the matter settled but the complainant refused to do so and later, she was called to PS to give her written complaint again and when she asked to return the previous complaint, they informed her that the said complaint was stolen. The complainant alleges that alleged no.1 and 2 threatened the complainant to implicate her in a false case, touched her inappropriately, molested her and humiliated her and she was blackmailed to settle the matter. The complainant further alleges that the IO of FIR no. 494/21 harassed her to appear before him; pressurized and threatened her while investigating the matter and tried to get the matter settled. The complainant has alleged Digitally Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 3 of 15 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.01.25 17:20:42 +0530 misuse of official powers given to police and submits that despite giving complaints to concerned authorities, no action has been taken till date."
3. On these allegations revisionist sought registration of FIR against respondent no. 2 to 13. Action Taken report was filed by the concerned inquiry officer PS Malviya Nagar, which has been summarized by the Ld. Trial Court as under :-
"As per the ATR, the complainant went to the house i.e.P3, Malviya Nagar where her aunt stays and she was continuously calling her aunt and a property dispute is pending between the complainant and her aunt and the complainant has sent several threatening messages to her aunt. As per the inquiry, due to the disputes between the parties, they both came to PS Malviya Nagar on 12.08.2021 and filed their respective complaints and on the complaint of the complainant, FIR no. 493/21 dated 18.08.2021 has been registered and in the cross case against her, FIR no. 494/21 dated18.08.2021 has been registered against her. The IO submits that the present complaint has been filed only to put undue pressure on the police and no such incident as alleged by the complainant happened and while she was in the Police Station, she was also accompanied by a lady officer and a cctv camera has also captured the footage."
4. Ld Magistrate after considering the Action taken report and hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order, placing reliance on M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State 2002 CRI. L.J.NOC 333(Delhi) and Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and others 2002 CRI. L.J. 2907 inter-alia with following relevant observations :-
"The allegations of the complainant are all within her knowledge. The IO has also reported that the cctv camera captured the footage and the lady police officer who accompanied her is also in the knowledge of the IO. Considering that the offence against the woman is alleged, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the application u/s 200 CrPC without wasting further time. Further, no ground has been explained for which the police investigation is required as the complainant herself is in the knowledge of all PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 4 of 15 PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:20:46 +0530 the facts; she is aware about the alleged and their details and the remaining evidences, if any,can be collected during the course of proceedings u/s 200 CrPC.
........
In the present case also there is no justification for directing the police for registering the FIR, request u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is declined, as all the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant including identity of the accused persons and documentary evidence, as well as the names and addresses of the concerned witnesses. Thus, there is no ground on which the assistance of the police is required. Further, if at any stage the court is of the opinion that investigation in the matter is required, the court will be within its power to order investigation u/s 202 of Cr.PC, and this order shall in no way bar such investigation at latter stage."
5. The revisionist being aggrieved with the said order of the Ld. Magistrate has assailed the same by instant petition on following grounds:-
i. that the impugned order is bad in law and is self-
contradictory as the Ld. Magistrate on the one hand has declined to direct the police u/s 156(3) CrPC to register FIR on the grounds that the complainant allegedly knew all the facts of the case, but at the same time directed the police to collect evidence in the form of CCTV and identity of a woman police personnel who was present at the time of the incident.
ii. that the judgment M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State 2002 CRI. L.J.NOC 333(Delhi) relied upon by the Ld. Trial Court is not applicable to the case.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 5 of 15Date: 2025.01.25 17:20:48 +0530 iii. that the Ld. Trial court erred in passing the impugned order as while she has declined to direct the registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., at the same time has stated that if required on recording the statement of the complainant directions may be issued to investigate the case.
iv. that Ld. Trial Court has not considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the revisionist/complainant has only oral/ocular evidence with her, which is not sufficient to proceed against the accused persons.
v. that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the revisionist does not have any documentary evidence and the Trial Court has incorrectly stated that the same is in possession of the revisionist.
vi. that the documents such as daily dairy register of the police station, attendance registers, CCTV recordings of the police station and the statements of persons, who witnessed the incidents of 11.08.2021 are not within the reach of the complainant/ revisionist.
vii. that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that there are grave allegations of committing cognizable offences against the accused persons, who are police officials holding powerful position.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 6 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:20:52 +0530
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds has argued that there is need for police investigation of the case. She also argued that the offences alleged against the accused persons are serious as they have committed the offences u/s 107/211/182/167/193/28/350/354A/354/2017/379/384/506/376 R/w 511 and 509 and 34 & 120(B) of IPC. She further argued that the police investigation is also required to unearth the conspiracy between the respondents.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.13 argued that the respondent no. 13 was not physically present on the date of incident i.e. 11.08.2021 and said incident was investigated by the investigating officer and no iota of proof has been found that he was in any way connected to the said incident. He further argued that he was made party to the present case just to put pressure upon respondent no. 9 to relinquish her share from the ancestral property in favour of the revisionist as respondent no. 14 is the daughter of respondent no. 9. It is further argued that respondent no. 13 was made party only to create psychological pressure upon the respondent no. 9 to 12 by misusing the law of the land. He further argued that all the averments mentioned in the petition are vague in nature and he has nothing to do with the allegations. He argued that the incident happened on 11.08.2021 was already investigated and the chargesheet has been filed before the Ld. Trial Court, where he was not the party to any of the FIR in either way. He argued that the complaint filed by the revisionist before PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:20:55 +0530 the Ld. Trial Court seems to be an afterthought and respondent no. 13 has no knowledge of the incident as alleged by the revisionist in her revision petition.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 9, 10 and 11 argued that revisionist is a family member of the respondent no. 9 and is having a civil dispute over the property and the revisionist only to harass them has made them party. He vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and Ld. Magistrate, for the right reasons, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, declined for registration of FIR. It was argued that instant petition is nothing but a mischievous attempt to aggravate the harassment of respondents. It was further argued that revisionist has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It was argued that the present case does not require any field investigation or custodial interrogation. He argued that the complaint given to the SHO, Malviya Nagar, do not disclose any cognizable offence. It was further submitted that the present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. On the strength of these arguments, respondents sought dismissal of instant revision petition.
10. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:20:58 +0530 Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 8 of 15
11. It is a settled law that a direction for registration of FIR cannot be issued mechanically, without applying judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. In Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."
13. In Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"83.....In terms of the judgments of this Court, the Magistrate is required to examine, apply his judicious mind and then exercise discretion whether or not to issue directions under Section 156(3) or whether he should take cognizance and follow the procedure under Section 202. He can also direct a preliminary inquiry by the Police in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra)."
14. Therefore, an exercise for issuance of direction for registration of FIR is not an empty formality. It is a serious exercise of judicial discretion. It must be exercised after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 9 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:21:01 +0530 interest of justice. Such direction cannot be issued in a casual and mechanical manner.
15. Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence warranting complex and scientific investigation for collection of evidence.
16. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment titled as Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that:-
"Magistrates should act under Section 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusation".
17. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s.
Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi) that :-
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s 156. But cases, where Magistrate Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 10 of 15 PATHAK Date:
2025.01.25 17:21:06 +0530 is of view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such, declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified''.
18. Adverting, to the facts of the present case, the revisionist has claimed that on 11.08.2021, when she went to her aunt's Chandra Prabha house at P-3, Second Floor, Malviya Nagar, she was physically assaulted, molested and harassed by her aunt, her son and other relatives and thereafter, when she went to the police station, she was further harassed and assaulted by the police personnel of Malviya Nagar Police Station, thus, they all committed offences u/s offences u/s 107/211/182/167/193/28/350/354A/354/2017/379/384/506/376 R/w 511 and 509 and 34 & 120(B) of IPC. The revisionist has also claimed that police investigation is required to unearth the conspiracy between the respondents against her for commission of alleged offences. The Ld. Trial Court considering that the offence has been committed against a women deemed it appropriate to allow the application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. instead of allowing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason not to agree with the view taken by the Ld. Trial Court in declining the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and allowing the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as the allegations are against the police officials also and there are Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 11 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.01.25 17:21:09 +0530 chances that the investigation may be biased. If the complainant wants to establish her case, certainly she can examine herself regarding her claims and if there is any necessity to summon any record or any witness, she can apply to the trial court for the same. Further, the magistrate can always exercise his power under section 202 CrPC.
19. In my considered view, once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this court, while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165 wherein it has been observed as under :
"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999 (2) SCC 452, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following:
"5......In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 12 of 15 2025.01.25 17:21:13 +0530 have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence....."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
20. After going through the order of Ld. Trial Court and complaint, I find that the learned trial court had observed that the petitioner / revisionist seems to be in possession of all the evidence and therefore, she can proceed with her complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Making such an observation and passing such an Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 13 of 15 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:21:16 +0530 order was completely within the jurisdiction and power of Ld. MM.
21. Ld. Counsel for the revsionist has also contended that the Trial Court has wrongly applied the judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra). It is correct that as per the judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra), if cognizable offence is disclosed, the Station House Officer has to register an FIR. However, when it comes to jurisdiction to be exercised by the learned MM u/s 156(3) CrPC, it has been a well settled law that the jurisdiction is to be exercised by learned MM cautiously and by application of mind.
22. Even otherwise, the Ld. Trial Court was very cautious and judicious because while disposing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, it allowed the revisionist to proceed with her complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C and has clarified that resort can be made to Section 202 Cr.P.C for conducting investigation, if required.
23. 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, Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
24. The revision petition is disposed off.
25. TCR be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of the present judgment.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 14 of 15
2025.01.25
17:21:20
+0530
26. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed compliance. by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.01.25 17:21:24 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 25th DAY OF January, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 15 signed pages) Cr Rev/101/2024 NEERA SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Page 15 of 15