Delhi High Court
Ankur Chadha vs Ritu Chadha on 7 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 10th January, 2011
Date of Order: 7th February, 2011
+CRL. M.C. 3323 of 2010
%
07.02.2011
ANKUR CHADHA ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jinendra Jain, Advocate
Versus
RITU CHADHA ... Respondents
Through: MR. Maninder Jeet Singh, Advocate.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 6th October,
2010 passed by the revision court dismissing the revision of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that
petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. for
registration of an FIR u/s 420, 425, 465, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC read
with Section 191, 193, 195, 196, 199 and 200 of IPC against the respondent.
The occasion for making this complaint was that the respondent filed a
maintenance application against the petitioner and along with the
maintenance application, she filed a letter of the company of the petitioner
showing that the salary of the petitioner was more than Rs. 5.00 lakh per
annum. The petitioner contended that the letter filed by respondent was a
forged letter and the original appointment letter was produced by the
petitioner before the Court showing that his salary was Rs. 4.00 lakh per
annum. The petitioner, therefore, requested that, for filing a forged
appointment letter in the court during judicial proceedings to prejudice the
mind of the Court, an FIR should be registered against the respondent under
various sections of IPC as enumerated above. The learned MM considered
that since the entire evidence was within the knowledge of the petitioner and
was available on the judicial file, no police investigation was needed and
directed that the petitioner should lead evidence treating the application as a
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
3. A person can move Court to report about commission of offence under
Section 156 Cr. P.C. when his effort to get an FIR registered with the police
fails. In the present case, the petitioner did not approach police for
registration of FIR. He directly made an application to the Court under
Section 156 Cr.P.C.. It was discretion of the Court to send the application for
registration of an FIR or to treat the application as a complaint and record
evidence itself under Section 202 Cr. P.C. Normally, where the evidence is
not within the control of the complainant and further investigation is required
to be done by the police, the proper course is to refer the matter for
investigation by the police, since the Court does not have paraphernalia to dig
out the evidence from the accused persons and get it produced in the court.
However, where the entire evidence is within the control of the complainant,
the Court, instead of getting an FIR registered against the accused, can ask
the complainant to produce the evidence in the Court and after appreciating
the evidence can summoned the accused. In fact, pre summoning evidence
amounts to an inquiry being conducted by the court into the commission of the
offence and if after the inquiry, the court is satisfied that offence had been
committee, the Court has to summon the accused. The purpose of filing an
FIR is not to see that accused must be arrested, the purpose of filing an FIR is
that proper inquiry/investigation should be made. The petitioner cannot object
to the inquiry/investigation being made by the Magistrate himself instead of
being made by the police.
I find no infirmity in the order of the learned MM or learned Sessions
Judge. This petition is hereby dismissed.
FEBRUARY 07, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
