Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 06.04.2015 (herein after referred as impugned order) passed by Sh. Sunil Beniwal, Ld. ACMM, Shahdara whereby he took cognizance of Kalandra u/s.182/211 IPC. It is important to note that Sh. Jatinder Kumar Madan filed an application for impleading him as a respondent in the present revision petition, however, he was allowed to assist the State during the arguments on this petition and was also permitted to make oral submissions at the time of final arguments by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 15.03.2016.

VI) Applicant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the revisionist requesting to take action against the revisionist for filing false complaint which caused harassment, mental agony and defamation to complainant and wasted the time of a public officer. It is further submitted by the applicant that the copy of the report dated 25.03.2014 submitted by IO regarding complaint dated 15.02.2014 clearly reveals that after the inquiry conducted so far revisionist was aware about the facts that the documents of property are in possession of the applicant and revisionist has filed the complaint dated 15.02.2014 as a counter to FIR no.496 dated 17.12.2013 as registered against the revisionist in PS-Preet Vihar under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC VII) On filing of above mentioned complaint case No.711/13 by the applicant, Ld. ACMM vide order dated 10.11.2014 called the status report from concerned SHO and on 09.01.2015, IO SI Anand Pratap submitted a report before the Ld. ACMM that an inquiry was made with respect to the complaint and after inquiry, the police officials came to the conclusion that the revisionist had filed false complaint to counter the case filed against him by applicant and now action as per law will be taken. Thereupon a kalandra u/s.182/211 IPC along with a complaint u/s.195 Cr.P.C dated 17.03.2015 by Inspector Arjun Singh was filed before the Ld. ACMM.

VIII) Ld. ACMM vide order dated 06.04.2015 after hearing the IO SI Anand Pratap and counsel for applicant took the cognizance of kalandra u/s.182/211 IPC, which is under challenge in this petition.

4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has assailed the order of Ld. Trial Court on the ground that Section 182/211 IPC are mutually exclusive and both cannot be charged together; there is no material, no witness, no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner can be even summoned or charge and can be convicted for the said offence; impugned order does not disclose any reason as to what prevailed in the mind of Hon'ble Court to issue summons as reasons are mandatory; impugned order suffers from the manifest illegality as the purported complaint i.e. DD no.26A dated 27.12.2014 by the police has been made with the collusion with the private persons; petitioner was never called by the police; no cognizance could have been taken on this complaint as the police on 17.03.2014 had closed the case; private person who is the brother of the petitioner in order to grab the properties using the criminal court as tool; there C.R.No. 17/15 Surinder Kumar Madan Vs. State Page 4/9` is no witnesses or any material for summoning and no other case or kalandra has been filed u/s.182/211 IPC in the said police station.

11. Therefore, when knowingly alleged false complaint was made to SHO, PS-Anand Vihar, there was no question for filing any complaint by court for offence punishable u/s.182/211 IPC as provided u/s.195(b) of Cr.P.C as the offence alleged to have been committed was not in respect of proceedings pending before any Court of Law. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of ld. counsel for the revisionist that cognizance of offence punishable u/s.182/211 IPC was bad in view of bar u/s.195(b) Cr.P.C, when the case falls under section195(1) Cr.P.C. for which a complaint u/s.195 Cr.P.C is filed by SHO, PS-Anand Vihar. The authorities as relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist are in respect of bar as provided u/s.195(b) Cr.P.C and therefore are not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the present case.