Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 Page 1 of 6 $~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 809/2009 RAKHI NANDWANA BOHRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. K. Z. Khan, Advocate. versus STATE(NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State. SI Ram Pratap, P.S. Vasant Kunj. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA O R D E R % 11.07.2014 Crl.M.A. No.10256/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.A. No.10257/2014 This application has been moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay, which is stated to be of 36 days in filing the application. For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the application is condoned. The application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 Page 2 of 6 Crl.M.A. No.10255/2014 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant seeking clarification of the final order dated 23.03.2009 of this Court disposing off Crl. M.C. 809/2009, where this Court had ordered as follows; “...the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to also take into consideration the version of the petitioner while completing the investigation and the petitioner/accused to join the investigation as and when required and to make their submissions before the Investigation Officer.” The petitioner/applicant now prays that; “Clarify the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by Hon’ble Justice Mool Chand Garg, in Crl. MC no. 809/2009 thereby directing the IO/SHO concern to file the report separately as per the provision of section 173 Cr.P.C. in the petitioner complaint dated 29.1.2009 before Ld. ASJ.” 2. The petitioner had moved this petition seeking the following relief; “(A) direct IO/SHO, Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, to register FIR on the complaint of the petitioner OR direct the police to enquiry and submit status report before this Hon’ble Court. Alternatively Quash orders dated 17.2.2009 and 7.3.2009 passed by the Ld. ACMM Ms. Kiran Bansal ACMM dated 17.2.2009 and 7.3.2009 and direct the Court below to pass orders on petitioner’s complaint in terms of Section 156(3) CrPC; Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 Page 3 of 6 (B) direct the police and the private respondents to open the lock illegally put on the house of the petitioners so that they may retrieve their belongings, including of their child, under the supervision of a Local Commissioner by making a proper inventory; and may also (C) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The case of the petitioner / applicant before this Court was that the third respondent, Dr. Parthasarathy, Chairman cum Managing Director, Sri Sharda Institute of Indian Management, had filed a complaint before the court below on 22.01.2009 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which the ACMM ultimately directed the police to register an FIR against the petitioner herein and her husband on 31.01.2009. According to the list of dates furnished by the petitioner, it appears that thereafter on 13.02.2009, the petitioner also moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., inter alia, against the third respondent seeking registration of a separate FIR. However, the court below did not issue any orders of the nature sought by the petitioner, and proceeded to issue some other orders on 17.02.2009 and 07.03.2009, with which also, the petitioner was aggrieved. Of course, the chief grievance of the petitioner was that the learned Magistrate had erred in not passing orders on the petitioner’s complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and therefore prayed that either a direction be issued by this Court to the court below to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to direct the police to investigate Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 Page 4 of 6 the matter in terms of Section 156 Cr.P.C., and to take such further steps as may be warranted in law. 4. The matter came to be finally disposed off by this Court on 23.03.2009. The operative part of the order disposing off this petition has been reproduced above. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order of 23.3.2009 in Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 disposing off the matter, shows clearly that respondent No.1 was merely directed by this Court to give due consideration to the facts and circumstances which the petitioner/applicant would like to bring to the notice of respondent no. 1 regarding the petitioner/applicant’s case during the course of its investigation pursuant to orders passed by the concerned court in the petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the non-applicant herein; and respondent no. 1 was to file a report in that matter keeping in mind the same. None of the specific reliefs sought by the petitioner, which have also been reproduced above, was granted by this Court on 23.03.2009 while disposing off this matter. 6. It may be noted that the case involves counter allegations made by both parties against each other. While in the case of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the third respondent, the Magistrate decided to go ahead and directed the registration of an FIR; the petitioner’s subsequent complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. did not meet with the same response by the Magistrate. It was this that had prompted the petitioner to approach this Court in the instant petition. Obviously, while disposing off the main petition, the Court was conscious of this fact and, after hearing parties, this Court limited itself to a mere direction to the petitioner / applicant to join the investigation that was initiated as a result of Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 Page 5 of 6 the FIR directed to be registered by the Magistrate while disposing off the application of the respondent No.3 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 7. Under the circumstances, the only conclusion can be that the petitioner’s prayer that appropriate investigation be directed and the concerned S.H.O. be ordered to register an FIR, as prayed for in the petitioner’s own application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was declined. If the petitioner was not satisfied in any way by the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2009 disposing off Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 finally, it was always open to her to take the matter further. It appears that she has chosen not to do so. 8. On a plain reading of the order in question, it is clear that only one report was to be filed by respondent no.1, and that there was no direction given by this Court to respondent no.1 to file a separate report in the case of the petitioner/applicant, nor has any order been passed by this Court in the instant case in any way varying or setting aside the impugned orders of the court below passed on 17.02.2009 and 07.03.2009 which according to the petitioner, indicated the trial court’s intent to proceed as if the petitioner’s complaint under Section 156(3) was one under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and tended to defeat the object of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(Refer list of dates and synopsis of petitioner); and to that extent, the only conclusion can be that the petitioner’s prayer to that effect was declined by this Court on 23.03.2009. To my mind, what the petitioner is seeking by this application, which has ostensibly been filed for clarification, is to achieve what he failed to do in the main petition, i.e., Crl.M.C. No.809/2009. Crl.M.C. No.809/2009 Page 6 of 6 For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ambiguity in the order of 23.03.2009 that would require any clarification. 9. Consequently, the application is dismissed. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J JULY 11, 2014 dr