Delhi High Court
Anil Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 21 July, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 21st July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1937/2015
ANIL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Sameer Chandra,
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Mr. Rajesh Kaushik
and Mr. Zubair Raza, Advs.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for
State with SI Krishan Gopal, PS-Palam
Village.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.6910/2015 (exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+ CRL.M.C. 1937/2015
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby
quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.2015 passed by ld. MM-
01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in the case titled as Anil Sharma v.
Kapil Sharma and Anr. thereby dismissing the application of the
petitioner filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and directed him to
lead pre-summoning evidence in the case.
2. The facts of the case are that on 15.09.2014, when the
petitioner / complainant returned back after meeting his tenant, who
are residing at WZ-10, Gali No. 16, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi, he noticed that the seal of the five electricity meters
installed at each floor of his house were broken. Then he watched
the CCTV footage and found that on 05.09.2014 at about 14:52 hrs.
respondents nos. 2 and 3 forcibly entered his house, broken the
seals of all the five electricity meters and tried to take way the same
forcibly.
3. Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint vide DD No. 58 B
on 16.09.2014 against the aforesaid respondents with PS-Palam
Village. However, the said Police Station did not register the case
on the ground that respondent nos. 2 and 3 committed offence
punishable under Section 427 of IPC which is not cognizable.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the same was dismissed on the
ground that complainant / petitioner is in possession of the evidence
and the investigation by the Police is not required. Accordingly, the
petitioner was directed to lead the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if any cognizable
offence is made out, the Police is bound to register a case.
6. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a
case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
1014 1 SCC (Cri) 524 wherein held as under:
"49. Consequently, the condition that is sine qua
non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the
Code is that there must be information and that
information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any
information disclosing a cognizable offence is led
before an officer in charge of the police station
satisfying the requirement of Section154(1), the said
police officer has no other option except to enter the
substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to
say, to register a case on the basis of such
information. The provision of Section 154 of the Code
is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound
to register the case on the basis of information
disclosing a cognizable offence. Thus, the plain words
of Section 154(1) of the Code have to be given their
literal meaning.
'Shall'
50. The use of the word "shall" in Section 154(1) of
the Code clearly shows the legislative intent that it is
mandatory to register an FIR if the information given
to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence.
51. In Khub Chand (supra), this Court observed as
under:
6...The term "shall" in its ordinary significance is
mandatory and the court shall ordinarily give that
interpretation to that term unless such an
interpretation leads to some absurd or inconvenient
consequence or be at variance with the intent of the
legislature, to be collected from other parts of the Act.
The construction of the said expression depends on
the provisions of a particular Act, the setting in which
the expression appears, the object for which the
direction is given, the consequences that would flow
from the infringement of the direction and such other
considerations....
52. It is relevant to mention that the object of using
the word "shall" in the context of Section 154(1) of the
Code is to ensure that all information relating to all
cognizable offences is promptly registered by the
police and investigated in accordance with the
provisions of law.
53. Investigation of offences and prosecution of
offenders are the duties of the State. For "cognizable
offences", a duty has been cast upon the police to
register FIR and to conduct investigation except as
otherwise permitted specifically under Section 157 of
the Code. If a discretion, option or latitude is allowed
to the police in the matter of registration of FIRs, it
can have serious consequences on the public order
situation and can also adversely affect the rights of
the victims including violating their fundamental right
to equality."
7. Ld. APP for the State on instructions from SI Kishan Gopal,
PS-Palam Village submits that no case of cognizable nature was
made out against respondent nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the police did
not register the case. Moreover, the application moved by the
petitioner has been decided by the ld. MM and the said Court was
of the opinion that the evidence is required to be placed on record.
Accordingly, ld. MM dismissed the application moved by the
petitioner.
8. In view of the facts recorded above, dismissing the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. does not close the right of
the petitioner. Moreover, if the petitioner has any evidence in his
possession, he has to lead and place the same on record and
establish his case. Thus, in this manner, no prejudice is caused to
the petitioner. The case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) is not relevant in
the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. In view of above, I find no discrepancy in the order passed by
the ld. MM.
10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J
JULY 21, 2015
jg
