IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI C.R. No.56/2012 Unique Case ID No.02402R0290382012 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Shehzade Khan R/o 14/161, Kalyan Puri, Delhi110091. Petitioner Versus ([ENTITY] ([ENTITY] ([ENTITY] S/o Sh. Udey Pal ([ENTITY] W/o Sh. Udey Pal All R/o Gali No.3, Tank Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. Also at: Village Niyamat Pur, Tehsil Bilari, Distt. Muradabad, U.P. Respondents C.R. No.56/2012 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 1 of 6 Date of Institution : 08.10.2012 Date of order reserved : 09.11.2012 Date of order : 17.11.2012 O R D E R
Vide this order, I shall dispose of a revision petition filed by the revisionist/petitioner under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] against order dated 16.08.2012 passed by Ld. M.M. (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby application of the petitioner filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] was dismissed. 2 Trial Court record has been called. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material available on the record.
3 The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that petitioner/complainant filed a criminal complaint under [SECTION] [ACT] read with [SECTION] [SECTION] [ACT] against respondents praying for summoning the respondents. Along with the criminal complaint, petitioner also filed an application under [SECTION] [ACT] for issuance directions to the SHO, PS Kalyan Puri to register the FIR. Ld. M.M. on appreciation of the material placed before him, dismissed the application of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the police to register FIR. It is against that order, the present revision petition has been filed. 4 Grounds challenging the impugned order dated 16.08.2012 are that the Ld. MM had failed to appreciate and examine the contents of complaint and that there was apprehension that respondents may kill minor daughter of the petitioner in future. 5 It is pertinent to mention that it is not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed under [SECTION] of the Code, the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate the crime merely because a prayer has been made in this regard, even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses.
6 As per [SECTION] of [ACT], when a complaint is received, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate can adopt two methods. Firstly, the Magistrate may forward the complaint to the police under [SECTION] [ACT], without taking cognizance, to investigate and file a report. Secondly, the Magistrate may take the cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint and conduct proceedings under [SECTION] of [ACT]. 7 I have gone through the ratio of judgment in case titled [PRECEDENT], in which the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed that the Magistrate can adopt two options when a complaint is filed before him. He may direct the police to investigate and file the report. He may take cognizance and proceed under [SECTION] of [ACT] It is further observed that the complainant has no right to make a demand to refer the case to the police.
8 Similar views have been expressed by their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled [PRECEDENT] in which it was held that the power to direct an investigation to the police is available to the Magistrate both under [SECTION] [ACT] and under [SECTION] [ACT] The powers under [SECTION] [ACT] to direct an investigation by the police is at the precognizance stage while the power to direct similar investigation under [SECTION] [ACT] is at the postcognizance stage. The Magistrate has dismissed the application of the petitioner under [SECTION] [ACT] and proceeded with the complaint filed by the petitioner under [SECTION] [ACT] Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is nothing irregular in the manner in which the Ld. Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of [SECTION] [ACT], if deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under [SECTION] [ACT] or proceed in terms of [SECTION] [ACT] The said law has been consistently followed in ;
([PRECEDENT]. ([PRECEDENT]. 9 Our own Hon'ble High Court has also held as such in recent judgment in case titled [PRECEDENT]. It was held that there was no error in the dismissal of application under [SECTION] of [ACT] by the Ld. MM as the evidence was in knowledge and possession of the petitioner. It was observed that plea of the petitioner that documentary evidence needed to be adduced by him could not have been recovered without help of police, was found to be without any merit as the petitioner could have summoned and got produced in the evidence.
10 In the present case, it is apparent that the accused persons as mentioned in the application/complaint are well known to the petitioner. Petitioner is also having the knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the alleged offences and the evidence is in his possession. The evidence can easily be adduced by the petitioner in support of allegations contained in the complaint, so there was no necessity to direct the police to inquire into the allegations. Moreover, the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner/revisionist has already been dismissed as withdrawn by the Ld. MM. 11 In view of above mentioned discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order can not be said to be inconsistent with the law. Ld. M.M. can not be said to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with him. Impugned order passed by Ld. M.M. does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Consequently, impugned order is hereby upheld. Resultantly, present revision petition is dismissed.
12 A copy of the order along with Trial Court Record be sent to Trial Court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( [ENTITY] ) Dated: 17.11.2012 District Judge & ASJ, I/C (East) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi