Delhi High Court
Meenu vs State & Anr. on 5 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on :28.07.2014
% Pronounced on :05.08.2014
+ W.P.(CRL) 1026/2014
MEENU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, St. Counsel
(Crl.) for State with Ms. Charu Dalal,
Mr. Ajay Pratap & Mr. Ajay Kumar
Singh, Advocates along with I.O. SI
Jagdish PS Saket
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. The Petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the
Respondent No.1 to register First Information Report against Respondent
No.2, who is her brother-in-law (jeth), on the basis of her complaint dated
04.02.2014 and investigate the matter as per the law.
2. A perusal of the complaint dated 04.02.2014 filed by the present
Petitioner shows that she was residing at House No.F-114, Lado Sarai, New
Delhi which belonged to her father-in-law Bhagwan Singh. Her father-in-
law was under heavy debt, which was taken by him for construction of the
house and marriages of his children, and due to this reason, he remained
disturbed and wanted to sell his property. Sh. Bhagwan Singh apprised
everyone about his desire to sell his property. It is mentioned in the
complaint that she purchased ground and first floor of the said house out of
her own resources by paying the agreed amount to her father-in-law partly in
cash and remaining by cheque. The remaining floors of the said property
were sold to one Pradeep Khatri, resident of Narela. Out of the sale
consideration, her father-in-law paid some amount to Respondent No.2 and
remaining amount was used to repay the loan.
3. Since the Petitioner had purchased the ground and first floor of the
said property from her father-in-law after paying sale consideration, the
Respondent No.2 was not happy and was nursing grudge against the
Petitioner, her husband and father-in-law. Respondent No.2 threatened her
father-in-law either to pay him more money or he will implicate them in a
false case. Respondent No.2 also trespassed on half portion of the floor
purchased by Pradeep Khatri for which Pradeep Khatri had instituted a case
against Respondent No.2.
4. It is further mentioned in the complaint that on 03.12.2013 at about
10.00 pm, Respondent No.2, who is in Delhi Police, and his wife returned
home and pressed the door bell. When her father-in-law opened the door,
Respondent No.2 started abusing him and manhandled him. On hearing the
noise, when she came down stairs and tried to pacify Respondent No.2, he
abused her, pressed her breast and slapped on her back. When she tried to
save herself, Respondent No.2 also fractured her finger. On hearing her
screams, her husband came down stairs and saved her from Respondent
No.2. Thereafter PCR was informed. Police came at the spot. As she was
in extreme pain due to fracture in finger, her husband took her to Trauma
Centre. Next day, when the Petitioner and her husband went to the Police
Station and asked the police to register the complaint, the police refused to
register the complaint as Respondent No.2 was employed in Delhi Police.
5. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC
before the learned MM. Alongwith the complaint, an application under
Section 156(3) CrPC was also filed with the prayer that SHO, PS Saket may
be directed to register an FIR and investigate the matter as per the provisions
of law.
6. The learned MM, vide order dated 29.03.2014, while declining the
prayer of the Petitioner to get the matter investigated through police by
giving directions under Section 156(3) CrPC, came to the conclusion :
"14. In the facts of the present case, material
averments/allegation against accused for constituting offences alleged
in the complaint are within the personal knowledge of complainant
and documents, viz. MLC can be summoned in court. The evidence
regarding alleged offence(s) being available with the complainant
which can be produced during her examination u/s 200 Cr.P.C., there
is no requirement of any field investigation or custodial interrogation
to be conducted by police.
15. Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by complainant for
registration of FIR is hence dismissed as no investigation by police is
required in this case.'
7. The legal position on the subject as to under what circumstances, the
Magistrate can exercise its power under Section 156(3) CrPC has been dealt
with by this Court in Vikrant Kapoor vs. The State & Ors.,
187(2012)DLT 241, wherein it was observed :-
"9. In Meenakshi Anand Sootha Vs. State, 2007 (4) JCC 3230 Delhi,
the learned M.M. dismissed the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C for giving direction to SHO to investigate the matter and
instead took cognizance of the case and proceeded with the complaint
case of the complainant. On facts the following observations were
made by this Court:
"10. It is well settled that under Section 156(3),
Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has not to pass the order
mechanically and has to apply his judicial mind. On
this point, decision of this Court, M/s. Skipper
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State 2001 IV AD (Del)
625, may be referred to in which it was held:
It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers
to Magistrate to direct the police to register a case
and initiate investigation but this power has to be
exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in
a mechanical manner. In those cases where the
allegations are not very serious and the complainant
himself is in possession of evidence to prove his
allegations there should be no need to pass order
under Section 156(3) of the Code."
8. In the case of Subhkaran Luharuka s/o Late K.P.Luharuka and
Shree Ram Mills Ltd. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Utility
Premises Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/1646/2010, the guidelines were laid by this
Court wherein it was specifically mentioned that the Magistrate, when
approached with a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, should invariably
proceed under Chaper XV by taking cognizance of the complaint, recording
evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the
accused.
9. The Petitioner/Complainant has approached this Court with a prayer
to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No
doubt, the powers vested in High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution while exercising the same. In Santosh De and Anr. vs. Archana
Guha and Ors. 1994 (1) SCALE 423, the Apex Court observed that unless a
grave illegality is committed the superior Courts should not interfere and
they should allow the Court which is seized up with the matter to go on with
it.
10. In the complaint case filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate
while passing the impugned order has considered the case of the
complainant in detail before arriving at the conclusion that the matter does
not required investigation by the Police thereby directing the Complainant to
lead evidence.
11. The impugned order when examined in the light of legal position
referred to above, I find that the case of the Petitioner is not such which is
not within the power and possession of the Complainant. The impugned
order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any
interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
12. The petition is hereby dismissed.
PRATIBHA RANI, J
AUGUST 05, 2014
'st'
