Delhi High Court
Rakhi Nandwana Bohra vs State (Nct Of Delhi) And Ors. on 11 July, 2014
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 809/2009
RAKHI NANDWANA BOHRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K. Z. Khan, Advocate.
versus
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.
SI Ram Pratap, P.S. Vasant Kunj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ORDER
% 11.07.2014
Crl.M.A. No.10256/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed off.
Crl.M.A. No.10257/2014
This application has been moved by the petitioner for condonation of
delay, which is stated to be of 36 days in filing the application.
For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed and the
delay in filing the application is condoned.
The application is disposed off.
Crl.M.A. No.10255/2014
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant
seeking clarification of the final order dated 23.03.2009 of this Court
disposing off Crl. M.C. 809/2009, where this Court had ordered as follows;
"...the petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent No.1 to also take into consideration
the version of the petitioner while completing
the investigation and the petitioner/accused to
join the investigation as and when required and
to make their submissions before the
Investigation Officer."
The petitioner/applicant now prays that;
"Clarify the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by
Hon'ble Justice Mool Chand Garg, in Crl. MC
no. 809/2009 thereby directing the IO/SHO
concern to file the report separately as per the
provision of section 173 Cr.P.C. in the
petitioner complaint dated 29.1.2009 before
Ld. ASJ."
2. The petitioner had moved this petition seeking the following relief;
"(A) direct IO/SHO, Police Station Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi, to register FIR on the complaint of the
petitioner OR direct the police to enquiry and
submit status report before this Hon'ble Court.
Alternatively
Quash orders dated 17.2.2009 and 7.3.2009 passed
by the Ld. ACMM Ms. Kiran Bansal ACMM
dated 17.2.2009 and 7.3.2009 and direct the Court
below to pass orders on petitioner's complaint in
terms of Section 156(3) CrPC;
(B) direct the police and the private respondents
to open the lock illegally put on the house of the
petitioners so that they may retrieve their
belongings, including of their child, under the
supervision of a Local Commissioner by making a
proper inventory; and may also
(C) pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner / applicant before this Court was that the
third respondent, Dr. Parthasarathy, Chairman cum Managing Director, Sri
Sharda Institute of Indian Management, had filed a complaint before the
court below on 22.01.2009 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which the
ACMM ultimately directed the police to register an FIR against the
petitioner herein and her husband on 31.01.2009. According to the list of
dates furnished by the petitioner, it appears that thereafter on 13.02.2009,
the petitioner also moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., inter
alia, against the third respondent seeking registration of a separate FIR.
However, the court below did not issue any orders of the nature sought by
the petitioner, and proceeded to issue some other orders on 17.02.2009 and
07.03.2009, with which also, the petitioner was aggrieved. Of course, the
chief grievance of the petitioner was that the learned Magistrate had erred
in not passing orders on the petitioner's complaint filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. and therefore prayed that either a direction be issued by this
Court to the court below to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's
complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to direct the police to investigate
the matter in terms of Section 156 Cr.P.C., and to take such further steps as
may be warranted in law.
4. The matter came to be finally disposed off by this Court on
23.03.2009. The operative part of the order disposing off this petition has
been reproduced above.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid order of 23.3.2009 in Crl.M.C.
No.809/2009 disposing off the matter, shows clearly that respondent No.1
was merely directed by this Court to give due consideration to the facts and
circumstances which the petitioner/applicant would like to bring to the
notice of respondent no. 1 regarding the petitioner/applicant's case during
the course of its investigation pursuant to orders passed by the concerned
court in the petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the non-applicant
herein; and respondent no. 1 was to file a report in that matter keeping in
mind the same. None of the specific reliefs sought by the petitioner, which
have also been reproduced above, was granted by this Court on 23.03.2009
while disposing off this matter.
6. It may be noted that the case involves counter allegations made by
both parties against each other. While in the case of the complaint under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the third respondent, the Magistrate
decided to go ahead and directed the registration of an FIR; the petitioner's
subsequent complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. did not meet with the
same response by the Magistrate. It was this that had prompted the
petitioner to approach this Court in the instant petition. Obviously, while
disposing off the main petition, the Court was conscious of this fact and,
after hearing parties, this Court limited itself to a mere direction to the
petitioner / applicant to join the investigation that was initiated as a result of
the FIR directed to be registered by the Magistrate while disposing off the
application of the respondent No.3 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
7. Under the circumstances, the only conclusion can be that the
petitioner's prayer that appropriate investigation be directed and the
concerned S.H.O. be ordered to register an FIR, as prayed for in the
petitioner's own application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was declined. If
the petitioner was not satisfied in any way by the order passed by this Court
on 23.03.2009 disposing off Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 finally, it was always
open to her to take the matter further. It appears that she has chosen not to
do so.
8. On a plain reading of the order in question, it is clear that only one
report was to be filed by respondent no.1, and that there was no direction
given by this Court to respondent no.1 to file a separate report in the case of
the petitioner/applicant, nor has any order been passed by this Court in the
instant case in any way varying or setting aside the impugned orders of the
court below passed on 17.02.2009 and 07.03.2009 which according to the
petitioner, indicated the trial court's intent to proceed as if the petitioner's
complaint under Section 156(3) was one under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
tended to defeat the object of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(Refer list of dates and synopsis of petitioner);
and to that extent, the only conclusion can be that the petitioner's prayer to
that effect was declined by this Court on 23.03.2009. To my mind, what the
petitioner is seeking by this application, which has ostensibly been filed for
clarification, is to achieve what he failed to do in the main petition, i.e.,
Crl.M.C. No.809/2009.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ambiguity in the order
of 23.03.2009 that would require any clarification.
9. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
JULY 11, 2014
dr
