Delhi District CourtCr Nos. 51/2015 vs The State on 11 September, 2015IN THE COURT OF Ms. REKHA RANI
           DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI


1.CR Nos. 51/2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0459322015


Goldy Kaur
W/o. Sh. Shamsher Singh
R/o. A­345­346, G.F., J.J.Colony
Khayala, New Delhi.                       . . . . Revisionist
versus
   1. The State
      (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
   2. Smt. Neha
      W/o. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
      R/o. A­494­495, J.J.Colony
      Khyala, New Delhi.
   3. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
      S/o. Not Given
      R/o. A­494­495, J.J.Colony
      Khyala, New Delhi.
   4. Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur
      W/o. Sh. Harvinder Singh
      R/o. A­97, Chand Nagar
      Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
   5. Harvinder Singh
      S/o. Not Given
      R/o. A­97, Chand Nagar
      Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.     . . . . Respondents

CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                          ....1/14
 And


2.CR No. 52/2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0459282015


Goldy Kaur
W/o. Sh. Shamsher Singh
R/o. A­345­346, G.F., J.J.Colony
Khayala, New Delhi.                 . . . . Revisionist
versus
   1. The State
      (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
   2. Smt. Kiran Kapoor
      W/o. Sh. Pramod Kumar
      R/o. B­661, Khyala
      New Delhi.
   3. Smt. Rekha Tandon
      W/o. Sh. R. R. Tandon
      R/o. 1/373, Vikas Puri
      New Delhi.
   4. Sh. R. R. Tandon
      S/o. Not Given
      R/o. 1/373, Vikas Puri
      New Delhi.
   5. Smt. Neha
      W/o. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
      R/o. A­494­495, J.J. Colony
      Khyala, New Delhi.



CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                    ....2/14
     6. K. K. Kapoor
       S/o. Not Given
       R/o. WZ­409A, Janak Park
       Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
    7. Sh. Ravi Chankar
       S/o. Late Sh. Uma Shankar
       R/o. Site 1/474, Vikas Puri
       New Delhi.                    . . . . Respondents


And


3.CR No. 53/2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0459292015


Goldy Kaur
W/o. Sh. Shamsher Singh
R/o. A­345­346, G.F., J.J.Colony
Khayala, New Delhi.                        . . . . Revisionist
versus
   1. The State
      (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
   2. Smt. Kiran Kapoor
      W/o. Sh. Pramod Kumar
      R/o. B­661, Khyala
      New Delhi.
   3. Smt. Rekha Tandon
      W/o. Sh. R. R. Tandon
      R/o. 1/373, Vikas Puri
      New Delhi.

CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                           ....3/14
     4. Smt. Neha
       W/o. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
       R/o. A­494­495, J.J. Colony
       Khyala, New Delhi.
    5. Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur
       W/o. Sh. Harvinder Singh
       R/o. A­97, Chand Nagar
       Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
    6. Harvinder Singh
       S/o. Not Given
       R/o. A­97, Chand Nagar
       Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
    7. Sh. Parmod Kumar
       S/o. Darshan Lal
       R/o. B­661, Khyala
       New Delhi.                    . . . . Respondents

And


4.CR No. 54/2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0459272015


Goldy Kaur
W/o. Sh. Shamsher Singh
R/o. A­345­346, G.F., J.J.Colony
Khayala, New Delhi.                        . . . . Revisionist
versus
   1. The State
      (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).

CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                           ....4/14
     2. Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur
       W/o. Sh. Harvinder Singh
       R/o. A­97, Chand Nagar
       Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.                      . . . . Respondents.


ORDER1.            The aforesaid four criminal revisions being inter­connected

         are taken up together for adjudication, which are directed against

         order dated 22.07.2015 (in short "impugned order") passed by

         learned Metropolitan Magistrate­08 (West). Facts pleaded therein

         by the complainant are that he is owner of property bearing No. A­

         345­346, J.J.Colony, Khyala, New Delhi (in short, "property in

         question"), which he purchased from Ran Avtar and Roshan Lal on

         13.01.2003. Vacant physical possession of the said property was

         also handed over to the complainant. Civil litigation is pending

         between the parties wherein the Court has restrained the

         respondents from dis­possessing the complainant from the ground

         floor.    Further it is alleged that respondents/proposed accused

         persons in furtherance of their common intention and criminal

         conspiracy forged and fabricated documents of title qua property

         in question. The respondents have unlawfully and fraudulently

         sold the property in question to Tarunajeet Kaur without handingCR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                  ....5/14over actual physical possession of the same to her. On 22.09.2011,

        complainant was forcibly dispossessed from first, second and third

        floor of the property in question by respondents/proposed accused

        and Tarunajeet Kaur was put in occupation of first, second and

        third floor of the property in question. She also threatened to kill

        the complainant.     She and her husband misrepresented to the

        complainant and succeeded in obtaining his signatures on some

        papers and obtained electricity connection in the name of the

        complainant at the ground floor on the basis of forged NOC with

        malafide objective to prove that complainant was lessee of

        Tarunajeet Kaur.     Complaints dated 10.05.2012 and 10.12.2014

        were made to the police by the complainant but no action was

        taken.The respondents/proposed accused persons have succeeded

        in having a false FIR bearing No. 297/14 underSection

        420/468/471IPC PS Khyala registered against the complainant

        whereas on his complaints dated 10.05.2012 and 10.12.2014, no

        action was taken.     The complainant filed an application underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. before the ld. Trial Court for directing

        SHO/IO PS Khyala to investigate the matter after registration of an

        FIR, which application was rejected by the ld. Trial Court videCR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                ....6/14impugned order dated 22.07.2015 in each case.2.          Trial Court Records were requisitioned, received and

         perused in each case.3.          I have heard Shri D. P. S. Guliani, ld. counsel for the

         revisionist and Ms. Neeta Gupta, ld. Addl. PP for the State.4.          Learned Trial Court had called for status report from PS

         Khyala. SI Ram Bhau submitted the same, which reads that on

         enquiry into the complaint of the complainant, it was revealed that

         Kiran Kapoor and Rekha Tandon had purchased the property in

         question from Ram Avtar and Roshan Lal and in 2006, property in

         question was purchased by Tarunajeet Kaur from Kiran Kapoor

         and Rekha Tandon. Tarunajeet Kaur sold the same to Neha.

         Tarunajeet Kaur leased ground floor of the property in question in

         2007 to the complainant and complainant obtained electricity

         connection for the ground floor on the basis of NOC and affidavit

         of Tarunajeet Kaur and on complaint of Tarunajeet Kaur in 2011

         underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. and order of Court dated 07.04.2014,

         FIR No. 297/14 underSection 420/468/471IPC PS Khyala wasCR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                  ....7/14registered against the complainant, in which, she is on bail and

         investigation is pending.      It further reads that the instant

         application underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. has been filed by the

         complainant to put pressure on the respondents.5.          Civil and criminal litigation are already pending between the

         parties. Courts are already seized of the matter qua title of the

         parties to the property in question and further alleged forgery of

         documents of title qua the property in question.6.          The law governing the exercise of discretion for directing

         registration of an FIR underSection 156(3)of Cr.P.C. is more or

         less settled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s.Skipper

         Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625 = 2001 (2)

         JCC (Delhi) 67. The relevant extract is quoted by Ld. Trial Court at

         page No.2 of the impugned order.7.          To the same effect are observations of the Hon'ble

         Allahabad High Court in the case titledGulab Chand Upadhyay vs.

         State of U.P., (2002) Crl.L.J. 2907, which ruled that :­CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                 ....8/14"the use of the word 'may' inSection 156(3)of
                Cr.P.C. in contradistinction to the word 'shall' inSection 154of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the
                Magistrate has the discretion to refuse registration
                of FIR".8.InSubhkaran Luharuka vs. Statereported in ILR (2010) IV

         Delhi 495, after going through a catena of judgments of the Apex

         Court and other superior Courts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

         laid down the guidelines for the subordinate Courts when to resort

         toSection 156(3)Cr.P.C., which are as under :­

                "(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to
                pass orders underSection 156(3)of the Code, at
                the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before
                coming to the Court, the Complainant did
                approach the police officer in charge of the Police
                Station having jurisdiction over the area for
                recording the information available with him
                disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence
                by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the
                Complainant. It should also be examined what
                action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior
                officer of the Police, when approached by the
                Complainant underSection 154(3)of the Code.(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own
                opinion whether the facts mentioned in the
                complaint disclose commission of cognizable
                offences by the accused persons arrayed in the
                Complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction.CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                 ....9/14He should also satisfy himself about the need for
                investigation by the Police in the matter. A
                preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by
                an SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by
                the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the
                Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that
                purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and
                such application of mind should be reflected in the
                Order passed by him. Upon a preliminary
                satisfaction, unless there are exceptional
                circumstances to be recorded in writing, a status
                report by the police is to be called for before
                passing final orders.(iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a
                Complaint underSection 200of the Code, should
                invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking
                cognizance of the Complaint, recording evidence
                and then deciding the question of issuance of
                process to the accused. In that case also, the
                Magistrate is fully entitled to postpone the process
                if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a
                police report underSection 202of the Code.(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to
                proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an
                application underSection 156(3)of the Code is
                also filed along with a Complaint underSection
                200of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to
                take cognizance of the Complaint. However,in that
                case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to
                proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy
                himself about the pre­requisites as aforesaid, but,CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                  ....10/14additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is
                necessary to direct Police investigation in the
                matter for collection of evidence which is neither
                in the possession of the complainant nor can be
                produced by the witnesses on being summoned by
                the Court at the instance of complainant, and the
                matter is such which calls for investigation by a
                State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order
                giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to
                proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV
                of the Code."9.          Thus, the Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and

          direct registration of an FIR in each and every case in a routine and

          casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set into motion

          on the mere asking of a party. The power underSection 156(3)of

          Cr.P.C. has to be exercised with care and caution and not

          mechanically on the mere filing of a complaint alleging that the

          police has failed to register an FIR.10.         Ld. Magistrate refused to direct registration of an FIR and

          took cognizance of the offence underSection 200of Cr.P.C. and

          listed the case for pre­summoning evidence observing as under :­

                        "The perusal of complaint shows that all the
                 facts are within the knowledge of the complainant.
                 The dispute between the parties is already pendingCR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                  ....11/14before the civil court. The investigation with
                 respect to same allegations is already in progress in
                 the FIR registered. Apparently, it appears that it is
                 a dispute regarding property. The matter prima
                 facie appears to be civil in nature.There is no fact/evidence which is to be
                 collected by the prosecution and as such there is no
                 requirement for investigation. No doubt,Section
                 156(3)Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrates to send the
                 matters for investigation but each case has to be
                 judged on its own merits and discretion given to
                 the court is to be exercised in a judicial manner and
                 not in a mechanical manner.The complainant is having control over the
                 evidence as the same is available with him. No
                 custodial interrogation is required in this case. In
                 these circumstances, I am not inclined to give the
                 direction to the SHO for registration of the case.
                 Hence, the applicationu/s. 156(3)Cr.P.C. is
                 dismissed."11.         I concur with findings of ld. Trial Court. The facts in

          entirety are known to the complainant. The identity of the persons

          involved is also well known. No custodial interrogation is required

          for recovery of any article or discovery of any fact as entire

          evidence is within the reach of the complainant. If any need were

          to be noticed for such investigation in any specific area of dispute,

          the Ld. Magistrate can always have resort to the power availableCR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                   ....12/14u/s 202 of theCr.P.C. at a proper stage.12.         Hon'ble Apex Court inKishan Lal vs. Dharmendra Batra &

          Anr., 2009 (9) SCALE 768 ruled that the revisional Court should

          not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction

          exercised by a Magistrate unless a jurisdictional or legal error of

          law is noticed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

          the view taken by the Ld. MM­06 (West) in the impugned order

          dated 14.05.2015 does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal

          error and is in conformity with the guidelineslaid down inthe

          judgments of the Superior Courts as discussed above and

          cognizance of the offence has been taken underSection 200Cr.P.C. for redressal of the complainant's grievances. There is

          presently no need for field investigation by the police. If any need

          were to be noticed for such investigation in any specific area of

          dispute, the Ld. Magistrate can always have resort to the power

          availableu/s 202of the Cr.P.C. at a proper stage. The revision

          petitions bearing CR Nos. 51/2015, 52/2015, 53/2015 and 54/2015

          are thus dismissed.CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                                 ....13/14Trial Court Records be sent back along with copy of this

        order to the Ld. Trial Court. Parties are directed to appear before

        the Ld. Trial Court on 15.09.2015.Revision files be consigned to Record Room.Announced in open Court                         ( Rekha Rani )
dated, the 11th day of                 District & Sessions Judge (West)
September, 2015                            Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CR Nos. 51/15 to 54/15                                              ....14/14