Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. Revision No.226/2023
Rajiv Giri
S/o Late Surajpal Giri
R/o H. No.1/4649/47, Street No.1,
New Modern Shahdara,
Mandoli road, Delhi - 34 …........…. Revisionist
Versus
Ranjeeta Rohtas
D/o Sh. Ramesh Rohtas
R/o H. No.Type 2/9,
Bundhelkhand University, Campus,
New Colony, Jhasi Khas, Jhansi, U. P. .......…. Respondent
Date of institution : 25.08.2023
Date of reserving order : 21.03.2024
Date of order : 21.03.2024
O R D E R
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 397
Cr.P.C assailing the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 whereby Ld. MM
dismissed the complaint Case No.1817 of 2022 titled as Rajiv Giri Vs.
Ranjeeta Rohtas, on account of non-prosecution by the complainant and
accordingly, consigned the file to record room.
2. Being aggrieved, Revisionist has filed the present revision
petition on the ground that on 05.07.2023, the said complaint case was
fixed for pre-summoning arguments; on that day, the said matter was not
called for hearing in pre-lunch session and when the matter was called
in post-lunch, at that stage, revisionist/ complainant and his earlier
Crl. Rev.226/23 Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
counsel were out for lunch and became late and in the meantime, Ld.
Trial Court dismissed the present complaint case for non-prosecution
vide impugned order dated 05.07.2023.
3. It is stated that the said complaint case is at initial stage and
even the respondent has not summoned so far; that if the impugned
order is not set aside, the revisionist will suffer irreparable loss.
Therefore, it is prayed that the said complaint case be restored as the
revisionist/ complainant wants his case to be heard and adjudicated on
merits. Further, since the said complaint case was on the stage of pre-
summoning, it would not cause any prejudice to the accused/
respondent, if the said complaint case is restored.
4. At the very outset, this Court deems it apt to dwell upon
the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court.
In the judgment titled as ‘Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander’, Crl. Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.1516 of 2010) decided on 13.09.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has observed that :-
“8. ….Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity
of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction
or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be
in accordance with law…....
Crl. Rev.226/23 Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey’, Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019
decided on 06.12.2019, made the following observations :
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited
to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an
inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the
regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As
reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of
this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error
of jurisdiction or law."
6. In this regard, it would also be apt to quote another
judgment of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, Criminal Rev. Petition
646/2018, decided on 25.01.2021, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court
has observed as under:-
“9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is
extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the
High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order
and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It
is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or
correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising
court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the
case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself
about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order
and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate
consideration of evidence.”
7. The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the
correctness, legality and propriety of the order in question and to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Needless to say,
that the power of revision needs to be exercised fairly, rationally and
Crl. Rev.226/23 Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
judiciously in order to put right any manifest error of law or
jurisdiction.
8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 vide which
Ld. MM dismissed the the complaint case titled as Rajiv Giri Vs.
Ranjeeta Rohtas filed by the present revisionist against the respondent,
reveals that Ld. MM has dismissed the said complaint case, while making
the following observations :-
“It is apparent that the complainant has lost
interest in pursuing this complaint. Hence, no purpose would
be served by keeping this matter on board as the time invested
in this matter can be devoted to other genuine litigants. In
these circumstances, this complaint case is disposed off as
dismissed on account of non prosecution by the complainant.”
9. Now, adverting to the factual matrix of the case, the
revisionist Rajiv Giri filed a complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC alongwith an
application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC against the respondent Ranjeeta Rohtas;
that on 05.07.2023, the case was listed for arguments but none appeared
on behalf of the revisionist and accordingly, the complaint case i.e. case
No.1817 of 2022 titled as Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas was disposed
off as dismissed on account of non-prosecution by the complainant.
10. Arguments advanced by Sh. Sh. Amarendra Pratap Yadav,
Ld. Counsel for Revisionist have been heard and the entire record is
perused by this Court.
11. The question before this Court is whether the Ld. Trial
Court has committed any error or illegality while passing the impugned
Crl. Rev.226/23 Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
order or not. The ground taken by the revisionist for his non-appearance
before the Ld. Trial Court is that on 05.07.2023, the complaint case in
question was not called for hearing in pre-lunch session and when the
matter was called in post-lunch, revisionist/ complainant and his earlier
counsel were out for lunch and became late and in the meantime, Ld.
Trial Court dismissed the present complaint case for non-prosecution.
Though strictly speaking, there is no illegality or any error in the
impugned order. However, taking liberal view to advance the remedy,
since the complaint case is at initial stage/ pre-summoning stage, as
such, it would not cause any prejudice to the proposed accused/
respondent, if the said complaint case is restored. Further, the
revisionist/ complainant would get a chance to pursue his contentions as
raised in the complaint case as well as in the larger interest of justice,
the matter can be adjudicated on merits, therefore, the complaint case
i.e. Case No.1817 of 2022 titled as Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas, is
hereby, restored to its original number subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-
imposed upon the Revisionist which will be deposited in the DLSA,
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.
12. Thus, in the view of the foregoing discussion, the present
revision petition stands allowed. Revision file be consigned to Record
Room. Copy of this order with Trial Court Record be sent to Learned
Trial Court for necessary intimation.
Announced and dictated in the
open Court on 21.03.2024
(SURABHI SHARMA VATS)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Crl. Rev.226/23 Rajiv Giri Vs. Ranjeeta Rohtas Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --