Prem Pal Singh & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4731 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision : 23rd September, 2011

+                             CRL.M.C.2155/2010

        PREM PAL SINGH & ORS.             ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Dr.L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate with
                           Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate

                              versus

        STATE & ANR.                            ..... Respondents
                 Through:     Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate for
                              State/R-1
                              Mr.F.A.Banisrael, Advocate for R-2

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Prem Pal Singh, petitioner No.1 is a complainant on whose statement FIR No.350/2007 for an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC stands registered against the brother of respondent No.2 i.e. Ms.Chanda.

2. Chanda filed a complaint with the police which resulted in FIR No.81/2008 being registered in which she alleged that Prem Pal Singh, his wife Bina Singh and other associates, not only made disparaging remarks pertaining to her being a Scheduled Caste, but also did acts which amount to an offence punishable under Section 325/354/395/452/506/34 IPC.

3. Since she had made allegations of caste based remarks being passed against her offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of 'The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989', were also added when FIR No.81/2008 was registered.

4. After investigating and finding that Chanda had retaliated to bring pressure upon Prem Pal Singh to not stand by the prosecution in FIR No.350/2007, a closure report was filed. Since FIR was registered at the instance of Chanda, the learned Magistrate issued a notice to Chanda. Needless to state this was to enable Chanda to file an opposition petition to the closure report.

5. The course chartered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is strange.

6. He took cognizance of a private complaint filed by Chanda and issued a process to summon the petitioners, who were impleaded as accused, in the complaint by Chanda.

7. I need not dwell on the legal aspect of the matter much in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1980 SC 1883 H.S.Bains Vs. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh). The decision would highlight that the Magistrate could not have taken any cognizance of the complaint filed by Chanda inasmuch as pursuant to a complaint filed by her with the police an FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. A closure report was filed. If the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the closure report, he could have directed further investigation or he could have proceeded by taking cognizance of the FIR ignoring the closure report but under no circumstances could he have ignored the closure

report and embarked upon the same journey from a different point, being the complaint filed by Chanda before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of quashing the summoning order dated 31.5.2010 as also the private complaint filed by Chanda.

9. For the benefit of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, I may clarify that the closure report filed by the Investigating Officer in FIR No.81/2008 may be processed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate keeping in view the opposition petition filed by Chanda. He may accept the closure report. He may accept Chanda's opposition petition. He may direct further inquiry. Whatever action he feels is appropriate, but keeping in view the nature of complaint and the facts investigated by the Police as per the closure report, it would be open to the learned Magistrate to proceed as afore-noted.

10. Petition stands disposed of.

11. Trial Court Record be returned.

Crl.M.A.No.8468/2011 Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 rk