Delhi High Court
Nutan vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 6 November, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 6th NOVEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1956/2013
NUTAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.D.P.Mann, Advocate with
Dr.O.P.Maurya, Advocate.
Versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP.
Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment
dated 16.02.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision
No.44/2012 whereby order dated 09.12.2011 of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate dismissing application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was
upheld. The petition is contested by the respondent No.2.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the record. Complaint case along with application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate against respondents No.2 to 14. It was averred that the
marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on
23.09.2009. Subsequently, it came to her notice that respondent No.2 was
already married to one Lalita Gautam and the said marriage was
solemnized on 16.02.2002. This fact was concealed by the respondent
No.2 and he did not bring it to the notice of the petitioner and her family
members before marriage. The respondent No.2 played fraud upon her
and established physical relations knowingly that his marriage with the
petitioner was a nullity. The petitioner's consent for physical relations was
obtained by fraud. The respondents No.3 to 14 abetted the said crime as
they were fully aware about the marital status of respondent No.2.
3. Vide order dated 09.12.2011, learned Metropolitan
Magistrate declined to order registration of First Information Report under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and opted to take cognizance. The case was
adjourned for pre-summoning evidence for 10.01.2012.
4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 09.12.2011 in Crl.
Revision No. 44/2012 which resulted in dismissal by an order dated
06.02.2012. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the instant petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and have examined the record.
5. The petitioner as a matter of right cannot insist for
registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Her complaint case is
already pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who has taken
cognizance. Case has been fixed for recording statements of the petitioner
and her witnesses in pre-summoning evidence. The Courts below did not
commit illegality or irregularity in declining to proceed under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
it is the discretion of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate either to get the
matter investigated under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or to take cognizance in
the exercise of its power under Section 190 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the
Trial Court has taken cognizance and has opted to proceed to enquire into
the averments in complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down
under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. The Courts below have rightly observed
that all the material to proceed against the petitioner is based upon
documents and is within the power and possession of the petitioner.
Powers under Section 156 (3) ought to be exercised primarily in those
cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the
reach of the complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be
necessary for recovery of certain articles, etc.
6. I find no illegality and impropriety in the impugned orders to
intervene. The petition is dismissed. The Trial Court shall proceed with
the complaint case as per law after recording pre-summoning evidence of
the petitioner.
7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 06, 2015 / tr
