Delhi High Court
Goldy Kaur vs State & Ors. on 29 March, 2016
Author: S. P. Garg
$-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 29th MARCH 2016
+ CRL.M.C.1226/2016
GOLDY KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate with
Ms.Divya Chugh, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.No.5285/2016 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C.1226/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.5284/2016 (Stay)
1. Present petition under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioner to challenge the order dated 05.11.2015 of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.No.50/15 whereby order dated 27.06.2015 of
learned Metropolitan Magistrate declining to register FIR under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. was upheld.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have
examined the file. On perusal of the record, it reveals that complaint case
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against
respondents No.4 to 6. It is alleged that on 27.12.2014 at about 12.45
p.m. she was assaulted by respondent No.4 at the instigation of respondent
Nos.5 & 6. She was inflicted injuries by a brick on her head. She made a
telephone call at 100. She was taken to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital by
the police and was medically examined.
3. The Trial Court vide order dated 27.06.2015 declined to get
the matter investigated through police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and
observed that the complainant was in complete control of the evidence
and no recovery was to be effected. Being aggrieved by the said orders,
the complainant filed revision petition which resulted in its dismissal vide
order dated 05.11.2015. The Revisional Court was also of the view that
investigation by police was not required as the nature of injuries sustained
by the victim were 'simple' caused by blunt object. All the evidence
which was required to be produced in the complaint case was within her
power and possession.
4. I find no irregularity and material illegality in the impugned
orders under challenge. The petitioner as a matter of right cannot insist
for police investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. She has already
filed a complaint case and has been permitted by the Trial Court to adduce
evidence before it. There appears to be a dispute over property between
the petitioner and respondent No.6 as disclosed in the petition. The status
report obtained by the Trial Court reveals that proceedings under Sections
107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated regarding the incident by the police.
5. I find no merit in the instant petition. It is dismissed in
limine. Pending application also stands disposed of.
6. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of
the case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 29, 2016 / tr
