Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CR No. 168/2023 “Payal vs. Premwati & Ors. ”
CR No. 168/2023
Payal vs. Premwati & Ors.
14.09.2023
Present: Sh. K.C. Maini, Ld. Counsel for revisionist.
Revisionist in person.
Sh. V.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for respondents.
It is submitted on behalf of respondents that respondent
No.1 has unfortunately got expired.
1. Revisionist has filed the present revision petition u/s 397
read with Section 401 CrPC passed in case titled as “Payal Vs
Premwati” bearing CC No. 450/21 wherein the application of
the revisionist filed u/s 156(3) CrPC was dismissed vide order
dated 10.05.2023 passed by Ld. MM, East, Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist instituted a
complaint case u/s 200 CrPC on stating that revisionist Payal
and Archana are the joint owners of a property bearing no
X/2844, Gali No. 05, Raghubarpura-II, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
3. Revisionist stated that on 01.07.2013, for sale
consideration of Rs 25 lakhs the above said property was
purchased by them through Sale deed from Premlata Madan
erstwhile owner of this property who purchased it vide chain of
documents. It is alleged that initially this property was sold by
respondent no.1 in 1988 and after many subsequent purchasers,
revisionist purchased this property.
Criminal Revision Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
CR No. 168/2023 “Payal vs. Premwati & Ors. ”
4. It is the alleged that despite selling the aforesaid property
in 1988, respondent no.1 Premwati executed a gift deed dated
09.12.2019 of 45 sq. yard in respect of above said property in
the name of accused of Benu Sagar wife of Sh. Jakesh Kumar
Sagar. It is further alleged that respondents hatched a criminal
conspiracy to grab the above said property of the revisionist by
creating forged and fabricated documents and fraudulently
gifted the property. It is submitted that despite a complaint
dated 05.02.2021 lodged by revisionist to the Police officials no
action was taken but no action was taken and hence, present
complaint case was filed alleging commission of offences
punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the submissions of the
revisionist called for an Action Taken Report. In ATR dated
11.11.2021, it is mentioned that revisionist holds the possession
over the property and no wrongful loss was done to her.
6. After going through the ATR as well as the contents of
the complaint, Ld. Trial Cout dismissed the application of the
revisionist.
7. It has been contended on behalf of revisionist that Ld.
Trial Court without discussing the facts of the case, dismissed
the application u/s 156(3) CrPC of the revisionist despite the
specific allegations against the respondents. It is stated that the
Ld. Trial Court wrongly interpreted the sections without any
Criminal Revision Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
CR No. 168/2023 “Payal vs. Premwati & Ors. ”
basis and beyond the law. It is submitted that in facts of the
case, and in light of judgment “Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of UP”,
2013 Legal Eagle (SC) 856 Ld. Trial Court ought to have
directed for the registration of FIR.
8. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of
respondents that Ld. Trial Court has rightly exercised its
discretion to dismiss the application of the revisionist as the
same is malafide and full of false allegations.
9. During pendency of revision petition, respondent no.1
has unfortunately got expired.
10. I have heard rival submissions and perused the record.
11. It is settled law of land that the Trial Court has
jurisdiction to apply its judicial mind to facts and circumstances
of the case while dealing with an application seeking
registration of FIR.
12. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat,
(2015) 6 SCC 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held as
under:
“20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that
direction by the Magistrate for investigation under
Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In
Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, it
was observed: (SCC p. 711, para 11)
The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up
for consideration before this Court in several cases.
Criminal Revision Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
CR No. 168/2023 “Payal vs. Premwati & Ors. ”
This Court in Maksud Saiyad case examined the
requirement of the application of mind by the
Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under
Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is
exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section
156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is
required to apply his mind, in such a case, the
Special Judge / Magistrate cannot refer the matter
under Section 156 (3) against a public servant
without a valid sanction order. The application of
mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the
order. The mere statement that he has gone through
the complaint, documents and heard the
complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will
not be sufficient. After going through the complaint,
documents and hearing the complainant, what
weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation
under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in
the order, though a detailed expression of his views
is neither required nor warranted. We have already
extracted the order passed by the learned Special
Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for
ordering investigation.”
The above observations apply to category of
cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari.”
13. In the present case, allegations are that respondent no.1
(since expired) despite selling the property in question in 1988,
executed a Gift Deed dated 09.12.2019 in favor of respondent
no.2. In facts of the case, it is evident that all incriminating
facts are within the knowledge of revisionist. Allegations made
in the complaint are based on documentary evidence. None the
less, respondent no.1 has already expired. In facts of the case,
it is not necessary to direct police investigation in the matter
for collection of evidence which is either in the possession of
Criminal Revision Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
CR No. 168/2023 “Payal vs. Premwati & Ors. ”
the revisionist or can be adduced by the witnesses on being
summoned by the Court at the instance of the revisionist.
14. In cases of this nature where the Magistrate has yet to
determine existence of sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused persons, Magistrate should take cognizance and
postpone issue of process and require the petitioner to produce
sufficient material to substantiate allegation made in the
complaint. If police assistance is needed, the Trial Court can
take recourse to Section 202 CrPC.
15. In this case also, Ld. Trial Court has called upon the
revisionist to lead evidence in support of allegations made in
the complaint and declined registration of FIR. As such, this
Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would
occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside. Accordingly, revision
petition stands dismissed.
TCR be sent back along with copy of this order.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 14th day of September 2023.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-05 /EAST
KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
Criminal Revision Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --