Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CR No.279/23
Ram Katula
Vs.
Ranjana Kapoor & Anr.
1
04.03.2024
ORDER ON REVISION
Present : None for the petitioner.
1. The petitioner herein had moved an application u/s.156(3)
Cr.P.C., seeking registration of FIR against the respondents, but
same was dismissed by the then Ld. CMM vide his order dated
16.03.2023. The said order has been challenged via the present
revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner / complainant are that
in 1996, Sh. Mani Ram, father of petitioner was enrolled as
member of Rajdhani Cooperative House Building Society. In
1971, respondent no.2 had occupied the post of Secretary of the
said society. Thereafter, in collusion with respondent no.1,
respondent no.2 hatched a conspiracy for unlawfully obtaining
allotment of a plot and induced father of the petitioner to
withdraw his contribution on the assurance that allotment of the
land, which was in his favour being a member of society, shall
remain unaffected. Believing the assurance of the respondents,
father of the petitioner had done the same. Thereafter,
respondents no.1 & 2 forged some documents for obtaining the
allotment of the plot in favour of respondent no.1. Further,
respondent no.1 got allotment of the plot no.247, Rajdhani
Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi, in her favour by fraudulent means,
-- 1 of 6 --
CR No.279/23
Ram Katula
Vs.
Ranjana Kapoor & Anr.
2
by representing herself as sister of Late Mani Ram. The
respondent no.2 by forging the signatures of father of the
petitioner on the transfer documents of the said property i.e.
transfer forms, affidavits, indemnity bond and other related
documents, by using the same to be genuine, to get the
membership transferred in her (respondent no.1) name. The said
act of the respondents caused wrongful gain to the respondent
no.1 and wrongful loss to father of petitioner and petitioner,
being legal heir of Late Mani Ram, being his son.
3. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioner lodged a complaint before
the concerned police authority, but they did not take any action.
Accordingly, petitioner moved an application u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C.
alongwith a complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C. thereby seeking
registration of FIR before the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court
dismissed the said application via the impugned order dated
16.03.2023. That order of dismissal is subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
4. Despite given opportunity, neither petitioner has taken steps for
notice to the respondents, nor has deposited the cost of
Rs.5000/-. None is appearing for the petitioner for the last two
dates of hearing. In view of the conduct, this Court proceeds to
decide the present petition on the basis of the averments made
therein.
5. Record perused.
-- 2 of 6 --
CR No.279/23
Ram Katula
Vs.
Ranjana Kapoor & Anr.
3
6. Commission of a cognizable offence is not the only condition
required to be fulfilled for exercising the judicial power
conferred u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. In addition to the cognizable
offence, the Court needs to consider the gravity of offence and
nature of allegations. Court has to further look into the kind of
evidence required to be collected. If the identity of the proposed
accused persons is ascertained and their whereabouts are known
to the complainant and the evidence can also be collected by the
complainant without assistance of any other agency, the Court
should refrain from exercising the power u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C.
Reason being, direction for registration of FIR is not a formal
step without any consequences. Registration of FIR, some times
may entail serious repercussion in the form of arrest and
deprivation of liberty. Therefore, this power has to be exercised
judiciously and carefully.
7. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled as M/S.
Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State on 24 April, 2001, has also
elaborated the circumstances, the manner and the scope of
power u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. The relevant observations are made as
under :
“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
-- 3 of 6 --
CR No.279/23
Ram Katula
Vs.
Ranjana Kapoor & Anr.
4
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 held 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 20001 (1) Supreme Page 129
titled " Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
8. Now, this Court would see whether the facts of this case demand
the registration of FIR or not. Sometimes, the identity of the
accused is not known to the complainant or victim and,
therefore, same has to be ascertained with the help of
independent investigating agency. That is not the case here as
the identity as well as the address of proposed accused is known
to the petitioner. All the requisite details are mentioned in the
memo of parties also.
9. Further, the petitioner has levelled the allegations that both
respondents confided and thereafter fraudulently induced his late
father to withdraw his contribution from the society with
intention to grab his allotment. Allegedly, on assurance of the
respondents, he withdrew his contribution. The father of the
petitioner has already died and there is no evidence which is
required to be collected by the police regarding the assurance
given by the respondents to the late father of the petitioner.
-- 4 of 6 --
CR No.279/23
Ram Katula
Vs.
Ranjana Kapoor & Anr.
5
Although, the petitioner has also alleged that some documents
were also forged by the respondents, but he has not given the
details of those documents. It appears that these vague
allegations are added just to enhance the gravity to the
allegations. Even if any such documents are there, same can be
subsequently summoned by the concerned Court and no police
investigation is needed in this regard also.
10.So, on of the basic requirement for launching police
investigation is that the nature of evidence required to be
collected is such that it cannot be collected by the complainant
at his own without assistance of an independent investigating
agency. That is apparently not the case here. In nutshell, there is
no such evidence which requires police investigation.
11.So, even if every allegation, levelled by the complainant /
revisionist is accepted as true, registration of FIR and
investigation by an independent agency shall not provide any
additional assistance to the petitioner. Therefore, the Ld.
Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application u/s.156(3)
Cr.P.C.
12. Accordingly, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the Ld. CMM. The revision petition is
accordingly dismissed. However, the Ld. Magistrate shall give
an opportunity to the revisionist to lead his evidence and pursue
his complaint.
-- 5 of 6 --
CR No.279/23
Ram Katula
Vs.
Ranjana Kapoor & Anr.
6
13.It is further clarified that observations made hereinabove shall
have no bearing on the merits of the case in any manner.
14.The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
15.A copy of this order alongwith TCR, if any, be sent back.
16.File be consigned to Record Room.
BABRU BHAN
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH WEST DISTT,
ROHINI COURTS
DELHI/04.03.2024
-- 6 of 6 --