Delhi High Court
Mrs Rita Bhalla & Anr vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 23 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23rd September , 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 3532/2016
MRS RITA BHALLA & ANR
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Manish Bhasin, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with
ASI Satyabir Singh PS
Mianwali Nagar.
+ CRL.M.C. 3533/2016
ARPIT BHALLA & ANR
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Manish Bhasin, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with
ASI Satyabir Singh PS
Mianwali Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 14934/2016 in CRL.M.C. 3532/2016
Crl.M.A. 14936/2016 in CRL.M.C. 3533/2016
Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 3532/2016 & Crl.M.A. 14935/2016 (stay)
CRL.M.C. 3533/2016 & Crl.M.A. 14937/2016 (stay)
1. The four petitioners in the two writ petitions are family members and
seek quashing of the order dated 28th October, 2015 whereby directions were
issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to register FIR on the
complaint of respondent No.2, dismissing the complaint case bearing No.
CC 63/1/15 and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and quashing of
the order dated 29th August, 2016 in Criminal Revision No.47/2/15 passed
by the learned ASJ remanding back the matter to the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate giving liberty to the respondent No.2 to file an affidavit in
support of her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter to
proceed in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the incident dated
11th November, 2013 two FIRs were registered one being on the complaint
of Arpit Bhalla i.e. FIR No.102/2014 under Sections
452/326/308/506/218/120B/34 IPC against the husband of respondent No.2
and the other co-accused and the other being FIR No.354/2013 under Section
160 IPC on the complaint of the Police Officer ASI Satbir Singh against both
Arpit Bhalla and Iqbal Singh. It is alleged that the complainant respondent
No.2 filed the complaint case bearing No.63/1/15 after FIR was registered
against her husband and others on the complaint of Arpit Bhalla belatedly
after more than one and a half year of the incident and thus learned Trial
Court could not have taken any action thereon. Further, directions under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have been passed without application of mind and the
learned ASJ without noting the contentions of the petitioners remanded back
the matter only for taking the affidavit of the complainant Baljeet Kaur on
record and thereafter passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3. On 11th November, 2013 a quarrel took place wherein Arpita Bhalla
his father A.C. Bhalla, mother Rita Bhalla and sister Pratishtha Bhalla were
on one side and Iqbal Singh and his wife Baljeet Kaur were on the other side.
Both the parties are neighbor being residents of A-194 and A-193 Ashoks
Enclave, Peera Garhi, Delhi respectively. Pursuant to the quarrel on the
complaint of ASI Satbir Singh FIR No. 342/2013 under Section 160 IPC was
registered on the same day and both Arpit Bhalla and Iqbal Singh were
named as accused. Arpit Bhalla made a complaint to the Police and since no
action was taken on his complaint he filed a complaint before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in 2013 itself whereon FIR No. 102/2014 was
registered at PS Mianwali Nagar under Sections 452/326/308/506/218/120-
B/34 IPC on 19th February, 2014. Baljeet Kaur filed a complaint as noted
above being complaint case No.63/1/15 wherein she gave the complete
history and the incident that took place on the evening/ night of 11 th
November, 2013. In the complaint she alleged that she was filthily abused
by accused No.1 to 3 i.e. Arpit Bhalla and his parents and accused No.4 i.e.
sister of Arpit Bhalla also tried to let her dog loose on the husband of the
complainant, allegations under Section 354 IPC were leveled against
A.C.Bhalla and that Arpit Bhalla beat her on the face and ear. The fact that
two FIRs one on the complaint of ASI Satbir Singh and the other on the
complaint of Arpita Bhalla were registered was mentioned in the complaint.
It was also stated that the MLC report and CCTV footage of the alleged
place of occurrence was also handed over which showed that her modesty
was outraged besides abusive language being used however still no FIR was
registered on her complaint. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the
order dated 28th October, 2015 directed registration of FIR on the complaint
of Baljeet Kaur under appropriate sections of law and directed the SHO to
file a final report or charge-sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. as per the
result of investigation on completion thereof.
4. Assailing this order dated 28th October, 2015 learned counsel for the
petitioner states that there is no application of mind by the learned Trial
Court while directing registration of FIR.
5. A perusal of the impugned order which spans into two and a half
pages noted the allegations and that on 11th November, 2013 the accused
persons attacked the complainant and her husband and outraged the modesty
of the complainant and even after the incident they were still using the
abusive language. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita
Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Court noted that since the
complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence the Police was
bound to register the FIR. However the Court further cautioned that the
order will not be treated as a direction to the SHO to immediately arrest the
accused and that they will first investigate the matter and find out whether
actually any offence was committed or not and the investigating officer may
arrest the accused only if the circumstances so warrant. Thus it cannot be
held that the Court did not apply itself while passing this order.
6. However, needless to state that when the petitioner took the matter to
revision, the learned ASJ noting the facts also noted that no affidavit in
support of the complaint was filed and remanded back the matter for re-
consideration. Supreme Court in the decision reported as Priyanka
Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287
held:
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this
country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be
supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks
the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart,
in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well
advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the
allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more
responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking
any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one
tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory
provision which can be challenged under the framework of the
said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it
cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as
if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior
applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a
petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be
clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to
that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that
an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an
affidavit is so that the person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is
made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will
be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will
deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that
the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned
Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the
case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases
pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption
cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita
Kumari[(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being
filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware
of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court it cannot be held
that the impugned order of the learned ASJ remanding the matter to the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking affidavit of the complainant in
support of the complaint and then passing of directions as warranted suffers
from any illegality.
8. I find no merit in the two petitions. The petitions and applications are
dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016
'ga'
