SANJEEV KUMAR vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.01.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 545/2024
SANJEEV KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State
with SI Annu, PS Hauz Khas.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 2194/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 2195/2024
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 45 days in
re-filing the petition is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL. M.C. 545/2024
$~69
*INTHE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI%Date of Decision:23.01.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 545/2024
SANJEEV KUMAR….. PetitionerThrough:Petitioner-in-person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS….. RespondentsThrough:Ms. MeenakshiDahiya, APP for State
with SI Annu, PS Hauz Khas.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
%J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 2194/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Applicationstandsdisposedof.
CRL.M.A. 2195/2024
For the reasonsmentionedinthe application, the delayof 45daysinre-filing the petitionis condoned.
Applicationstandsdisposedof.
CRL. M.C. 545/2024
1.Petitionunder Section482of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.”)hasbeenpreferredonbehalf of the petitioner for settingaside
order dated10.10.2023, passedbylearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge, South-
East, SaketDistrictCourts, NewDelhiinC.R.No.507/2023, wherebythe
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page1of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
order passed by the learned M.M. dated 24.07.2023 was not interfered with.
order passed by the learnedM.M.dated24.07.2023 wasnot interfered with.
2.Shornof unnecessarydetails, asper the factsrecordedinorder dated
24.07.2023passedbythe learnedMetropolitanMagistrate, anapplicationunder Section156(3)Cr.P.C. waspreferredbythe petitioner (complainantbefore the learnedM.M.)statingthathe wasmarriedtoone X on19.04.2017atSadiqNagar, NewDelhi. Afewdaysafter themarriage, his
wife X”disclosedthatwhenshe wasstudyinginClass-XI andagedabout16years, her cousinArvindSinghhadcommittedrape uponher atherresidence. She further disclosedthatwhenshe informedher mother, she wasslappedandthreatenednottodisclose toanyone. Further, she didnotrevealittoanyone because of societalpressure,andsince aforesaidtime, washavinganalfissure asthe allegedcousin/accusedhadcommittedunnaturalsex. Acomplaintwasmade bythe petitioner withthe police inthisregard,
butsince noactionwastaken, a complaintcasewaspreferredbefore the
learned M.M.withanapplicationunder Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3.Itmaybe noticedthatanActionTakenReportwascalledbythe
learnedMM fromthe SHOconcerned, wherebyitwassubmittedthatX”
wife of the petitionerwasenquiredonhermobile phone on15.07.2021and17.05.2021regardingthe allegedincident,andthe complaintlodgedbythepetitioner withthe Police. Thewifeof thepetitioner informedthatnothingasallegedbythe petitioner hadever happened. Further, she informedthatthe
petitioner hadstartedharassingher physicallyaswellasfor dowry.
Domestic Violenceproceedings, maintenance case,aswellasdivorce
petitionwere statedtobe pendingbefore variousforums. She further statedthatpetitioner wanted todefame her and deniedthe allegations.
4.Inthe aforesaidbackground, for the reasonsrecordedinorderdated
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page2of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
24.07.2023, the learned M.M. declined to exercise powers under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. for ordering investigation and registration of FIR but granted
the complainant/petitioner an opportunity to examine himself under Section
200 Cr.P.C.
24.07.2023,the learnedM.M.declinedtoexercise powersunderSection156(3) Cr.P.C. fororderinginvestigationandregistrationof FIR butgrantedthe complainant/petitioner anopportunitytoexamine himself under Section200 Cr.P.C.
5.Aggrievedagainstthe aforesaidorderpassedbythe learnedM.M., a
RevisionPetitionwaspreferredbythe petitioner beforethe learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge, whichwasdismissedvideorder dated10.10.2023.
6.Presentpetitionhasthereafter beenpreferredunder Section482Cr.P.C. bythe petitioner, whoisa practicingAdvocate atSaketDistrictCourtandhas arguedthe same in person.
7.Innutshell, the grievance of the petitioner isthatbothlearnedM.M.aswellasAdditionalSessionsJudge misdirectedthemselvesbynotdirectingthe registrationof FIR,since the factsdisclosedcommissionof cognizableoffenceandthe evidence couldonlybe collectedbythe Police. Itisfurthersubmittedthathe hasrecordingsinhispossession, whichcouldprove theconversationexchangedbyhimwithhiswife/familymembersastocommissionof offence asconveyedtohimbyhiswife. Duringthe course ofsubmissions, relianceisfurther placeduponRajKumar& Anr. v.State,
CRL.A. 484/2015decidedbyDelhiHighCourton26June, 2023;SureshGarodiav.the State of AssamandAnother, CRL.A. 185/2024, decidedbyHon”ble Supreme Courtof India onJanuary9, 2024andShaikh Aneesv.
The State of Maharashtra, CRL.A559/2019, decidedbyHighCourtof
Bombay on 5 August 2022.
8.Itispertinenttonote thatinthe ActionTakenReportfiledbythe
Police, itwassubmittedthatwife of the petitioner doesnothave any
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page3of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
grievance and had denied any such incident as already noticed above.
Merely because an information was allegedly disclosed by his wife regarding
commission of offence to the petitioner, it cannot give rise to the cause of
action when the wife of the petitioner” herself has categorically denied any
such offence having been committed by her cousin. Obviously, petitioner
who is an Advocate intends to obliquely use the proceedings and gain some
advantage in the pending matrimonial proceedings against his wife.
grievance andhaddeniedanysuchincidentasalreadynoticedabove.
Merelybecause aninformationwasallegedlydisclosedbyhis wife regardingcommissionof offence tothe petitioner, itcannotgive rise tothe cause of
actionwhenthe wife of the petitioner”herself hascategoricallydeniedany
suchoffence havingbeencommittedbyher cousin. Obviously, petitionerwhoisanAdvocate intendstoobliquelyuse the proceedingsandgainsome
advantage inthe pending matrimonialproceedings against his wife.
9.Itispertinenttoobserve thatwhenanapplicationunder Section156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed by an applicant, the Magistrate is empoweredtoverifytheveracityof complaintbycallingof ActionTakenReporttoascertainifanyactionhasbeentakenbythe Police andalsoensure thatcomplaintmaynothave beenfiledwithoblique motivestoharassa personor settle the
scores. Itmayalsobe noticedthata Police Officer under Section157(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. maynotinvestigate the case, if itappearstosuchofficer thatthere isnosufficientgroundfor enteringonaninvestigation,andshouldinformthecomplainantinthe prescribedmanner. The power todirectinvestigationunder Section156(3) Cr.P.C. iscrucialinthe sense thatif directionsare
issuedtoOfficer-in-Charge of a Police Stationto investigate the complaint, ittakesawaythe discretionvestedinsuchOfficerunder Section157(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. tonottoinvestigate the case andboundshimtocarryoutthedirectionsforinvestigationgivenbytheMagistrate. The applicationof
judicialmindbythe MM while exercisingpower under Section156(3)
Cr.P.C. isof utmostimportance notonlytoassessthe disclosure ofcommissionofcognizableoffence buttorule outthepossibilityofharassmentbyunscrupulouselementsbymakingbaldallegations. Thelocusstandiof the complainant, if made onbehalf of another personcanalsobe
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page4of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
looked into by the Magistrate and he has to be satisfied as to the need of
investigation in the matter. If the allegations are vague and non-specific, the
directions may not be issued for registration of FIR, since the power to
investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on one end intends to check
arbitrariness by the police authorities to not to carry out investigation in
cases where it is warranted, and on the other hand also to ensure that same is
not invoked at whims and fancies of the complainant. Merely alleging
disclosure of cognizable offence may not be sufficient to issue directions
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if the same lacks credibility and is bereft of
necessary details as to the time and date of commission of offence and
appears to be perverted litigation.
lookedintobythe Magistrate andhe hastobe satisfiedastothe needofinvestigationinthe matter. If the allegationsare vague andnon-specific, thedirectionsmaynotbe issuedfor registrationof FIR, since the power toinvestigate underSection156(3)Cr.P.C. onone endintendstocheckarbitrarinessbythe police authoritiestonottocarryoutinvestigationincaseswhere itiswarranted,andonthe other handalsotoensure thatsame isnotinvokedatwhimsandfanciesof the complainant.Merelyallegingdisclosure of cognizable offencemaynotbe sufficienttoissue directionsunder Section156(3)Cr.P.C.if the samelackscredibilityandisbereftof
necessarydetailsastothe time anddate of commissionofoffenceandappears to be perverted litigation.
10.Inthe presentcase, wife of the petitioner isunder nohandicapanddidnotcome forwardwithanycomplaintor allegationsof commissionofoffence as alleged by the petitioner.
Anysuchallegationof rape notonlyputsa questionmarkondignityof X”butalsomayleadtoharassmentandaffectreputationandlifeofanother person.The ActionTakenReportbyPolice cannotbebrushedasidelightly.Havingreceivedthe communicationfromthecomplainantthatnosuchincidenthadoccurred, the police rightlyexercisedthe discretiontonottoregister the FIR asitwouldhave beena futileexercise.However, despitetheActionTakenReportbeingonrecord, the petitioner persistedwiththeaforesaidcomplaintandalsofiledthe CriminalRevisionPetitionbefore the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, whichwas rightly dismissed.
11.Thepetitioner doesnothave locusstanditofile the complaintinthe
factsandcircumstancesof the caseintheface of denialbyhiswife of anyallegedoffencetohave beencommitted.The proceedingsappear tobe
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page5of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
prima facie initiated with oblique motives with an intention to gain some
advantage in proceedings against his wife X”. The wheels of criminal
justice system cannot be permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints
wherein the victim herself does not have a grievance but the same is
maliciously filed on her behalf. This may be an agonizing way of
harassment not only to the spouse but a person who may be innocently
framed and prosecuted. The provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which
empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and investigate
cannot be permitted to be abused as sought by the petitioner. The Magistrate
is bound to apply his judicial mind to the complaint and appears to have
rightly refused the registration of FIR exercising power under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
primafacie initiatedwithoblique motiveswithanintentiontogainsomeadvantage inproceedingsagainsthiswife X”.The wheelsof criminaljustice systemcannotbe permittedtobecloggedbyfrivolouscomplaintswhereinthevictimherself doesnothave a grievance butthe same ismaliciouslyfiledonher behalf. Thismaybe anagonizingwayofharassmentnotonlytothe spouse buta personwhomaybe innocentlyframedandprosecuted. The provisionof Section156(3) Cr.P.C. whichempowersa Magistrate todirectthe policetoregister a case andinvestigatecannotbe permittedtobe abusedassoughtbythe petitioner. The Magistrateisboundtoapplyhisjudicialmindtothe complaintandappearstohaverightlyrefusedthe registrationof FIR exercisingpower under Section156(3)
Cr.P.C.
The prayer made bythe petitioner for directionstoinvestigate andregister anFIR under Section156(3) Cr.P.C.defyanylogic or prudence,
since anysuchincidentof commissionof offence hasbeencategoricallydeniedbythe wife ofthe petitioner. The authoritiescitedbythe petitionerare distinguishable.
The petitionbeingwithoutanymerits, isdismissedwitha costofRs.25,000/-(RupeesTwentyFive ThousandOnly) tobe paidtoDelhiHighCourt Legal ServicesCommittee within eight weeks.
Pendingapplication, if any, alsostandsdisposedof. Acopyof thisorder be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for information.
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
JANUARY23, 2024/akc/sd
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page6of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
CRL.M.C. 545/2024Page7of 6
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA