Tejinder Kaur vs Manjula Chakarvarty And Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 1154 Del

ORDER

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. In this revision petition filed under sections 397 / 407 Cr. P.C. the prayer clause which is material, reads thus:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to revise the impugned order of the Hon'ble Trial court dated 22.12.2000 passed by Shri Vinod Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by:-

a) setting aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court in the above stated matter.

b) directing the trial court to issue summons to all the 5 accused in the above stated matter under section 204, after this Hon'ble court holds that prima facie there exist enough evidence on record in the complaint and the accompanying documents indicating commission of offence by the accused persons in terms of the test to be applied in such cases after conclusion of the pre-summoning arguments.

c) passing any other order(s) that the Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. Complaint (copy at pages 25 to 40), the contents whereof need not be reproduced for deciding the revision, was filed against Dr.Manjula Chakravarty and 4 others for the offenses under sections 406, 418, 465, 120B & 193 IPC. The petitioner after examining herself as CW-1 closed evidence on 19th August 2000. She also referred to some of the documents filed Along with complaint in her statement. In terms of the order under challenged dated 22nd December 2000 the Metropolitan Magistrate postponed the issue of process and directed investigation to be made by SHO, Haus Khas who was to file report on or before 8th March 2001. Relying on the decision in Rajendra Mohan Sinha and others vs. Nimal Chand Sinha and others, air 1969 Tripura 15, it was argued by the petitioner that said order is bad in the eye of law in as much as it does not disclose any reason why the Metropolitan Magistrate chose to direct the investigation to be made by SHO, Haus Khas. In the said decision in a complaint against respondents 1 to 5 for the offence under section 395 IPC the SDM after recording the statement of complainant had made an order, without recording reasons, on 18th August 1966 requiring Circle Officer to enquire and report into the allegations by 19th September 1966. Said order was held to be erroneous as it did not reflect the reasons which compelled the SDM to pass that order. It may be noticed that said decision was rendered with reference to section 202 of old Cr. P.C. 1898 and new Section 202 of Cr. P.C., 1973 has done away with the provision requiring a Magistrate to record his reason in case he postpones the summoning of accused and order for enquiry or investigation in the complaint. Obviously, Rajendra Mohan's case (supra) has no applicablilty and no legal fault can be found with the impugned order on said count.

3. It was next contended by the petitioner that scope of enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited to the ascertaining of truth or falsehood made in the complaint (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before court; (ii)for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out and (iii)for deciding a question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defense that the accused may have. It was pointed out that the allegations made in complaint are supported by documentary evidence, therefore, there was hardly any ground for the Metropolitan Magistrate to have directed investigation in the matter by SHO, Haus Khas in terms of aforesaid order. In support of submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in Laxmi Kishore Tonsekar vs. Stake of Maharashtra, 1993 Mh.L.J.609, Smt. Nagawwa vs.Veerana shivalingapa Konjalgi and others, , Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs.The State of West Bengal and another, , Mushtaq Ahmad vs.Mohd.Habiqur Rehman Faizi and others, , J.P.Shamra vs.Vindo kumar Jain and others, Chandra Deo Singh vs.Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another 1963(2) Crl.L.J.397.

4. Language of section 202 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that in appropriate cases despite allegations made in complaint being supported by documentary evidence, a Magistrate has the discretion to direct investigation / enquiry to be made by a police officer. In the present case, exercise of discretion by the Metropolitan Magistrate that investigation be made SHO, Haus Khas vide the impugned order cannot be said to be either illegal or absurd. That being so, in revisional jurisdiction aforesaid order dated 22nd December 2000 cannot be interfered with and aforementioned prayer (a) deserved to be declined. As regards prayer (b), it may be stated that it is for the Metropolitan Magistrate seized of the complaint to form opinion if there was sufficient ground or not for proceeding against the respondents after taking note of the statement of petitioner, the documentary evidence referred to in her statement and result of investigation / enquiry to be submitted by SHO, Haus Khas and direction cannot be issued to him to summon the respondents as accused persons for the offenses complained of. Decisions referred to above have nor relevance on the issue at hand.

5. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed being without merit.