Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 48 Ct. Cases 936/2023
DARSHNIK NARANG Vs. SUBODH HATWAL AND ORS.
(Model Town)
01.08.2024
Present: None.
Arguments have already been heard.
Vide this order, this court shall decide the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The case of the complainant in brief is that on 25.07.2022 around 9 P.M,
the complainant visited a food outlet with the name and style "CHOWRINGHEE
ROLLS" at F-14/55 Model Town- II Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of P.S
Model Town, on his scooty make Honda Activa. The Complainant parked his Scooty
in open space, opposite to Chowringhee Rolls. The place where the complainant
parked his Scooty was dark as there was no provision of light in that area. Since that
area was maintained by the proposed accused persons, therefore, sewerage line was
lying in that area and it was the statutory duty of accused persons to keep cover on all
the sewage manholes. As soon as the complainant parked his Scooty opposite to
Chowringhee Rolls and put his feet on the ground, he landed in the open sewerage
and fell therein up to his waist and suffered multiple injuries on different parts of the
body. Further, the complainant started bleeding due injuries sustained to him. Copy of
MLC of BJRM Hospital is on record. It is further stated that the complainant beside
sustaining bodily injury also suffered loss of his phone i.e. OnePlus Nord CE 5G,
which got destroyed when the complainant fell. Apart from this, the complainant's
track pants got torn and shoes got dirty due to which he suffered great humiliation
and harassment in front of his friends as well as other market by standers. Manhole
was left open due to the omission of the accused persons who are the officials of the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Sanitation Department.
The complainant approached the police officials but they did not take
any action and therefore the present complaint before the court for issuing necessary
direction has been made. The complainant in support of his claim has also furnished
-- 1 of 3 --
..2..
the copy of the medical document as well as the photographs of the spot and his
broken phone.
ATR was filed under the signatures of the SI Arun Kumar and is dated
10.08.2023 and same was forwarded by the SHO concerned. It is stated that inquiry
was conducted and the matter was found to be related to MCD. The complainant was
informed and it is lastly stated that no cognizable offence was made out.
Argument heard. Record perused.
It also becomes imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances,
when an application or prayer u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be entertained by the court.
In Ms. Skipper beverages P.Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the
circumstances when the powers of magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should be exercised,
has been explained.
“7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to
direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this
power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a
mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very
serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove
his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under Section
156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper
application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of
the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant
himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before
the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in
to help the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a
Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking
cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the
Code as held by Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled "Suresh
Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
All the proposed accused persons are officials of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi. Evidence is already in possession of the complainant. No
-- 2 of 3 --
..3..
requirement is made out for scientific or field or forensic investigation by the police
officials. This court is of the opinion that discretion u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not required
to be exercised in the present case.
Also, if there is any need for police assistance to ascertain who was
incharge of the manhole or carrying out the work order, an inquiry can be ordered u/s
202 Cr.PC. No grounds are made out for exercising discretion u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
Accordingly, the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C is dismissed.
However the complainant is not without a judicial succour.
Accordingly, cognizance is taken U/s 200 Cr.PC.
Put up for PSE on 12.12.2024.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
01.08.2024
-- 3 of 3 --