Delhi District Court
Shabbir Ahmed vs Sh J.N. Kapoor on 14 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI)SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number : 50/2015
Unique ID No. 02406R0295812015
Shabbir Ahmed
S/o Late Sh Bundu Khan
R/o A-20, Taimur Nagar,
New Delhi
...........................Revisionist
versus
1. Sh J.N. Kapoor
2. Rakesh Kapoor
Director of J.R.K Constructions Pvt Ltd.
Office at: 744, Asiad Complex,
New Delhi-110049,
3. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
. ............................Respondents
Date of institution of Revision : 15/09/2015
Date of Allocation : 16/09/2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 09/10/2015
Date of Judgment : 14/10/2015
Particulars related to impugned order:
CC No: : 14/1/15
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 156(3) of Cr.PC
Date of impugned order : 18/08/2015
Name of learned Trial Court : Sh Ankit Singla,
Ld MM-03, New Delhi
Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 1 of 9
Memo of Appearance
Sh K.Z. Khan, Ld counsel for Revisionist.
Sh Praveen Rahul Learned APP for State.
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed against order, dated 18.08.2015, passed by the Ld Trial Court of Sh Ankit Singla, Ld. MM, Saket Court, New Delhi.
2 Present revision has been filed by the revisionist, namely, Shabbir Ahmed, against the order, dated 18.08.2015, vide which Ld Trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3 Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
4 Brief facts of the case are that complainant Shabbir Ahmed filed a complaint u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C R/w Section 200 Cr.PC, to the effect that the he is peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and he is doing the work of fabrication and operating from his residence. He has further alleged in his complaint that J.N. Kapoor and Rakesh Kapoor approached the complainant in respect of fabrication work to be carried out at H-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and Flat no. 205, Mangolia, Gurgaon and D-34, South Extension., Part-II, New Delhi and these persons assured the complainant that they will give Rs. 25000/- as salary to the complainant excluding the daily wages to the labour which will also be paid by them to the complainant and they further agreed that the complainant will get the materials by his own and they will make the payment of the material separately. It has further been alleged that the complainant stared the work Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 2 of 9 on the above said site from 17/09/2012 and completed the work by 12/02/2014 on various sites. It has been further alleged by the complainant that he requested the accused persons to give him the salary as well as the money for the material used by the complainant as agreed upon by the accused persons but they neither paid the complainant any salary nor paid the amount for material used in the work of fabrication, instead, they gave beatings to the complainant and also threatened him that they will confine him and will get him killed. It has been further alleged, in the complaint, that the complainant made various complaints to the police and higher authorities but of no consequences. Hence, when he left with no option , he filed a complaint case before Ld Trial Court u/s 156(3) Cr.PC read with section 200 Cr.PC for registration of FIR u/s 325/298/509/420/423/467/468/506/406 of IPC.
5. On this complaint, Ld Trial Court called the Action Taken Report from the SHO concerned. After filing of ATR and after hearing the arguments, Ld Trial Court passed the impugned order, dated 18 th August, 2015, vide which, it denied the request of the complainant for giving the directions for registration of the FIR u/s 156(3) of Cr.PC and fixed the matter for complainant's evidence.
6. Aggrieved from the said order, Complainant has filed this revision petition for setting aside the order of Ld Trial Court, dated 18/08/2015.
7. It is contended by Ld Counsel for the revisionist that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate the status report, dated 07/04/2015, and had not mentioned anything about the status report filed by SI Neeraj in his order, dated 18/08/2015. It has further been contended that Ld MM has Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 3 of 9 neither accepted nor rejected the status report of the IO while passing the impugned order. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the matter was reported to the police and IO, in his status report, had stated that investigation was carried out but no details or evidence in respect of the investigation being carried out, was filed alongwith the status report. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court has wrongly held, that custodian interrogation is not necessary, given the nature of allegations and have relied upon the judgments not applicable on the complaint of the revisionist and had wrongly dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC of the revisionist. It has further been contended that police did not carry out the investigation properly and filed the vague report before the Ld Trial Court. It has further been contended that when the revisionist approached the police after filing of the written complaint regarding the commission of the offence, he was given a copy of the reply filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 and one R.P.Singh, wherein they have admitted the working of the complainant as a contract labourer and had denied the averments of the revisionist in his complaint, thereby indicating that the police did not investigate and simply filed a vague report in the court on the basis of the reply filed by the complainant. It has further been contended that the said report was not filed by the IO alongwith his status report before the Ld Trial Court. It has further been contended that this shows the malafide intention of the IO/SHO not to register the FIR. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that if the evidence, which is the prime duty of the investigation authority to collect and submit before the court is not collected and filed in court, it will be denial of principle of natural justice to the revisionist and the revisionist cannot file the evidence, which is within the possession of the respondents. It has further been contended that Ld Trial court had failed to appreciate the fact that the status report, dated 07/04/2015, filed by the IO was not in accordance with Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 4 of 9 the provisions of Cr.P.C nor the averments in the complaint made by the revisionist have been verified or investigated by the concerned police.
8 I have heard Ld Counsel for the revisionist and Ld APP for State and have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions and carefully perused the entire trial court record, including the documents on record.
9. Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties
(b) the nature of the information
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d)whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860)
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 5 of 9 person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
10 Section 156 of Cr.PC is also reproduced herein below for ready reference.
156. Police Officer's Power to investigate cognizable case.--(1) Any officer in charge of police station may, without the order of Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire inot or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
2. No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
3 Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned 11 In Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of UP and others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 dated 12.11.2013, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :-
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted, only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons, in Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 6 of 9 brief, for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR, if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
( vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:-
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes.
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases.
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 7 of 9 mentioned above.
12 In the present matter, the complainant had been approached by the alleged accused persons/respondents, namely, J.N. Kapoor and Rakesh Kapoor, in respect of fabrication work to be carried out at H-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and Flat no. 205, Mangolia, Gurgaon and D-34, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi. In consequences of that, the complainant started the work from 17/09/2012 and completed the work on 12/02/2014 on various sites. Thus, it is clear that there was an agreement between the parties to do some civil work. If, there was breach of contract, on the part of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, in making the payment, remedy lies in filing the civil case under various provisions of Contract Act and Other statutes. There is nothing on the record file to show any culpable Act or criminal Act, which can be said to have been done on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, so as to attract the registration of the FIR, in the present matter. Ld Trial Court was, fully, justified in coming to the conclusion that the complainant/applicant were possessed of all the evidence and material to be produced in support of his case. In a civil dispute, the contracting parties have got material available at their command to file a civil action. No criminal liability can be fastened in such matters merely, on the asking of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to prove his case, during complainant's evidence, before ld Trial Court, when the witnesses on behalf of complainant are examined.
13 In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that there was no material, before the Ld. Trial Court, to summon the accused persons. Complainant will, get sufficient opportunity to prove his case, before Ld Trial Court, during complainant's Evidence.
Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 8 of 914 The present revision petiton is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
15. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to have an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
15 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court, along with the trial court record.
16 File related to Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Ramesh Kumar)
On 14th of October, 2015 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts:
New Delhi
Criminal Revision No.50/2015 Shabbir Ahmed Vs J.N. Kapoor & anr Page 9 of 9