Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This order shall dispose of the criminal revision petition under section 397/399 Cr.PC, preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2013 of Ld. ACMM-01, Karkardooma Courts, summoning the revisionist u/s 204/217/218 IPC, in case FIR No. 302/12, PS Shahdara.

2. On behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that Ld. ACMM has taken the cognizance of a purported offence u/s 204/217/218 IPC without application of mind and without understanding the import of section 218 as the petitioner/ revisionist had no inclination of saving any person from punishment. Ld. ACMM has not gone through all the judicial record which reveals that accused in his anticipatory bail application has admitted the fact that the sale deed in question was executed by him in favour of the other accused. The court had summoned the SHO PS Shahdara and subsequently the IO/ revisionist to enquire about the said documents and the fact regarding loss of documents has also been covered in the departmental enquiry and therefore, there was no concealment of fact by the revisionist about loss of documents. No sanction was taken from the Administrator before commencing prosecution of the revisionist within one year from the date of offence. Summoning orders have not been issued within a period of 3 months from the date of commission of the act by the revisionist. Ld. ACMM has not considered the judgment in case of 'Sumer Chand Vs. Union of India, 1993 AIR 2579, 1994 SCC (1) 64 and Rakesh Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)'. Provisions of section 468 and 197 Cr.PC have also not been taken into consideration by Ld. ACMM. Ld. ACMM has not appreciated that if section 218 IPC is not made out then offences u/s section 207 and 217 IPC are non- cognizable and hence no FIR can be registered at the behest of a complainant or even Ld. Magistrate. Ld. ACMM has directed registration of FIR without going through the trial court record in case FIR No. 303/91, PS Shahdara.

3. It is further submitted on behalf of revisionist that admittedly the revisionist had joined Delhi Police as S.I. in 1997 and retired as ACP on superannuation on 30.11.2011. There is no dispute that in the departmental enquiry, he has been exonerated on 09.10.1996. While passing judgment on 05.08.2010, in the case Ld. ACMM has mentioned that in the case which was investigated by the petitioner it is stated that wrong mentioning of property number by accused No. 1 in the alleged sale-deed dated 05.07.198 executed by him in favour of the accused No. 2 has given rise to this long drawn legal battle between him and the complainant which lasted for about 19 years. Ld. Successor court on application filed for return of title deeds, passed an order on 04.09.2012 indicting the petitioner that the title deed was was lost by him which resulted in acquittal of the accused and passed an order which was sent to Commissioner of Police for verifying the facts of FIR. Ld. ACMM held that the petitioner and or his associates were guilty of offences punishable u/s 217/218 IPC r/w section 204 IPC and ought to be prosecuted for the said offences. A report was sought from office of Commissioner of Police to be submitted on 04.10.2012. After registration of the case, charge-sheet dated 26.02.2013 was filed on which Ld. ACMM took the cognizance for the offences u/s 204/217/218 IPC on the same date and summoned the revisionist for trial.

4. It has been submitted that revisionist has been aggrieved by the summoning order passed by Ld. ACMM as the same is without merits as the offence under sections mentioned are not made out. In the aforesaid order and the summoning order the Ld. ACMM also made allegations that the original documents were lost by the petitioner who also misrepresented that he had never collected those documents during the investigation of the said FIR No. 303/91. This averment was never made by the I.O. and Ld. ACMM has come to this conclusion without there being any whisper of denial by the petitioner. The Ld. ACMM has also observed that the said seizure memo was not placed on the judicial records by the IO for reasons best known to him whereas the order of Ld. Predecessor clearly shows that the IO had deposed as PW-8 and documents were placed on record as Ex. PW8/A. The original documents were sent to CFSL which were returned at PS Shahdara when the petitioner was already transferred and this fact has clearly emerged from the departmental enquiry. The observation of Ld. ACMM of placing a different seizure memo dated 27.09.1993 is once again unfounded. It was the copy of the same seizure memo which can be cross-checked by the Ld. ACMM. This aspect has also emerged during the investigation and has been mentioned by the IO in the charge-sheet filed by him in the court on 26.02.2013. Ld. ACMM has not considered the merits of the case and has cast aspersions on the integrity and competence of a Police Officer without application of mind and without any evidence in respect of the same and has also pronounced in the concluding part of the order that the petitioner is guilty of offences punishable u/s 217 & 218 IPC r/w 204 IPC without any investigation and without following the due process of law. Section 204 and 217 are non-cognizable whereas section 218 is cognizable but the description given by the Ld. Magistrate of the Act of the petitioner does not make it a prima-facie case punishable u/s 218 IPC.

9. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State has not disputed the facts but it has been submitted by him that the revisionist was charge-sheeted for commission of offences u/s 204/217/218 IPC and provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable, and there was no bar of limitation.

10. Admittedly, the revisionist herein, is a police officer who on the alleged date, time and place was posted as S.I. and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of provisions u/s 140 of D.P. Act. Admittedly, the prosecution has not obtained any sanction under the said provision. The authorities relied by Ld. Counsel for revisionist are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. He could not be deprived of the protection of section 140 D.P. Act. In the authority reported as Inspector Rajender Saini and Anr. Vs. State, 2005 Cri. L. J. 3861, it was held that the offence u/s 201 IPC was not committed outside the ambit of duty and therefore, limitation prescribed u/s 468 Cr.PC will apply and in view thereof the cognizance of offence against the petitioner therein was barred by limitation on the date when the impugned order was passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. In authority reported as 'Rakesh Kumar No. 1912/T Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. M.C. No. 2881/2007', it was held that the sanction was not obtained within the period of limitation as per the provision of section 140 D.P. Act.