Satyendra Pal Singh vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 5259 Del

$~ 3
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        W.P.(CRL) 46/2013 & CRL.M.A. 12398/2013
%                                       Judgment dated 18.11.2013
         SATYENDRA PAL SINGH                    ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr.Aditya Aggarwal, Advocate

                            versus

         STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI         ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advocate along with ASI Nisar Ahmed, P.S. Sadar Bazar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned ASJ.

2. A complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed vide an order dated 1.3.2012; a revision against the order of dismissal of the complaint was filed and the matter was remanded back to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 19.3.2012. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the concerned Magistrate again passed a similar order by which the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed. Counsel also submits that another revision petition filed by the petitioner met with the same fate. The matter was remanded back for a fresh order. Subsequently, the application of petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was again dismissed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 26.10.2012, which led to a third revision petition filed by petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated

29.11.2012.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law, as there is enough material to show that an FIR should have been registered. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that not only has the accused forged the signatures of the petitioner, but he is also being defamed as the accused is writing various letters including letter to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi under the false signatures of the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate may be modified to the extent that the petitioner may be permitted to lead evidence in the matter to establish his case. There is force in the submission made by counsel for the State to the extent that in case complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was to be dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner. It would be useful to refer to the decision in the case of Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) reported at 2010 (170) DLT 516 and more particularly paragraph 52A, which reads as under:

"52A. For the guidance of subordinate courts, the procedure to be followed while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is summarized as under:-

(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the Complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the Complainant. It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the Police, when approached by the Complainant under Section 154(3) of the Code.

(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the Complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the Police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the Order passed by him.

Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing`, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing final orders.

iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code, should invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the Complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report under Section 202 of the Code.

(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the Complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre- requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will lead evidence in the matter, however, he submits that three further complaints have been made by the accused in the name of the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the State submits that in case a complaint is filed to the Local Police, the local police will look into the matter.

7. In case a complaint is filed to the Local Police, the local police will look into the matter in accordance with law unaffected by the order which has been passed in the present proceeding.

8. Petition and the application stand disposed of, in above terms. Let the order passed by this court be brought to the notice of the Magistrate by the petitioner to enable him to proceed further in the matter.

9. DASTI.

                                                                    G.S.SISTANI, J
NOVEMBER             18, 2013
ssn