FIR against wife for submitting forged Streedhan list.

IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­04
& SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2015
ID No. 02406R0083892015

Satish Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma
R/o 218, Suraj Apartment
MIG DDA Flats,Pul Prahlad Pur New Delhi­110044. ………..Petitioner

Versus

1 State

2 Pooja Kaushik
D/o Sh. Rambir Kaushik
R/o DQ­254, Ward No. 17
Opp. Holy Children School
Dev Nagar, Palwal, Haryana­ 121102

3 Rambir Kaushik
R/o DQ­254, Ward No. 17
Opp. Holy Children School
Dev Nagar, Palwal, Haryana­ 121102

4 Santosh Kaushik
W/o Sh. Rambir Kaushik
R/o DQ­254, Ward No. 17
Opp. Holy Children School
Dev Nagar, Palwal, Haryana­ 1211­02…..Respondents

Instituted on : 12.03.2015
Argued on : 19.01.2016
Decided on : 27.02.2016

O R D E R

1 Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Satish Sharma Vs. State & Ors. – CR No. 90 of 2015 1/6 Court of Ms. Archana Beniwal, Ld. MM­08, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 106/3 in case titled as “Satish Sharma Vs. Pooja Kaushik”, where by Ld. MM was pleased to not only dismiss the application of the petitioner filed under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, but also had declined to take cognizance of the matter, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 2 The aforesaid order was passed by the Ld. MM along with following observations:­ “The present matter is obviously more of a counter blast to the case registered against the complainant in FIR no. 125/14 under Section 498A, 376, 406 IPC of PS PPP. This case is still pending trial. In these circumstances, another proceeding regarding the same subject matter would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. If upon trial, the finding arrived at by this Court different than the ones by the Court of the Ld. Sessions Court, it would only add to confusion.

Even otherwise, the complainant can summon the said jewellery and raised the said contention raised by him in the present complaint at the stage of defence evidence, in support of his innocence and malafide of the respondent”. 3 Feeling aggrieved form the aforesaid impugned order and the observations made therein by the Ld. MM, the petitioner had challenged the same on the following amongst other grounds:­ The impugned order was erroneous as it was completely lacking the correct appreciation of the law and facts involved in the present case and thus it deserved to be set aside because the law in this regard was very clear and it was mandatory for the Court to direct the police to register an FIR where a cognizable offence was disclosed in the complaint. Ld. Trial Court was further erroneous in declining the cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner without even affording him an opportunity of proving his allegations by adducing necessary evidence in support thereof as the matter involved serious criminal offences of forgery and using the forged document as genuine and presenting them in investigation so as to procure false conviction of the petitioner. Thereby the respondent had abused and misused the machinery of the state as well as police by boosting her demands of extortions manifold.

READ  Accused to be provided copies of FIR within 2 days of filing RTI

Ld. MM had also failed to appreciate that even the queries raised by the Court from the police on 09.01.2015 were also not answered by the police in its ATR filed on record.

It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per the mandate of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP”, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the registration of FIR in cognizable offence was mandatory.

It was also contended by the petitioner that if the Ld. Magistrate was of the view that there was no necessity of registration of FIR in the present case, then, she ought to have taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.PC. and should have proceeded with the recording of pre­summoning evidence of the petitioner and after appreciating the evidence so adduced on record, the Ld. MM should have given her findings.

Ld. MM had further failed to appreciate that it was the Court of first cognizance as per the provisions of Cr.PC and its obligations were statutory in nature where as the powers of the Sessions Court to initiate a prosecution were suo moto and therefore Ld. MM should not have left the matter entirely on the discretionary powers of the Ld. Sessions Courts or its findings in the case. 4 In the light of aforesaid grounds and contentions, it was prayed that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the revision deserved to be allowed by this Court.

5 Briefly stated the facts that had necessitated filing of the present Revision Petition are succinctly given here as under:­ Petitioner along with the other family members has been roped as an accused in FIR No. 125/14 PS PPP under Section 498A, 376 and 406 IPC initiated at the instance of the present respondents.

During investigation of the aforesaid case respondents were stated to have submitted a list of ‘stridhan’ in the police station which was taken on record by the IO for the purpose of further investigation in the matter. On 27.08.2014, during hearing on the bail application of one Amit Sharma, one of the relatives of present Satish Sharma Vs. State & Ors. – CR No. 90 of 2015 3/6 petitioner, it was submitted before the Court by IO Smt. Kala Joshi from PS Govind Puri that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had submitted the estimates for purchase of jewellery instead of bills and the jewellers who had allegedly issued the estimates had told the IO that they had never sold the jewellery and had only issued the estimates and therefore the fraud had been committed by respondent by creating false and fabricated bills for the purpose of extorting money from the petitioner and his family members.

READ  Guj HC: 498A Quash against family members including uncle & aunt of husband

6 Upon revealition of this fact to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a complaint along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC before the Court of Ld. MM wherein there was a prayer made to the Court for issuance of directions to the concerned police station to register a case under appropriate sections of law and to investigate the same. It was the said application as well as the complaint which was decided/ disposed of by the Ld. MM vide her aforesaid order which has been the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

7 In order to show his locus standi to file the said complaint before the Ld. MM, reliance has been placed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on the ratio of case decided by Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and others reported in (2005) SCC (Cri.) 1101 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that in case where an offence of forgery in respect of documents was committed prior to its production before the Court or giving in evidence before the Court, then no complaint by the Court would be necessary and a private complaint would itself be maintainable. However, where the forgery is done in a document when it has already been taken on judicial record, in that eventuality, there must necessarily be a complaint from the Court itself and no private complaint shall lie in that regard.

8 So far as the contention of petitioner regarding his right to adduce pre­summoning evidence is concerned, reliance in this regard has been placed upon the ratio of a case titled as Bizu Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerela, wherein Hon’ble Kerela High Court was pleased to observe that the Magistrate has no power to dismiss the complaint at the threshold and thus the Magistrate was required to afford an opportunity to the complainant to adduce pre­summoning evidence on record.

9 I have heard Sh. Vishal Gosain, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent and have perused the material available on record.

READ  Money not in relation with marriage is not dowry

10 Though, there is no denial to the observations made by Ld. MM in the impugned order that the forgery in respect of the estimates as well as the bills filed by the respondents in the file of FIR no. 125/14 could have been brought on record by the petitioner by calling the said witnesses in his defence evidence. 11 However, the moot question which requires a debate in the present case is not only the forgery or manipulation in the documents but also to find out the person responsible for doing the same.

12 Hence, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case, neither petitioner could have succeeded in fastening the criminal liability upon either of the respondents by calling the witnesses either in his defence nor he could have done so by way of examining them in his pre­summoning evidence adduced on record in support of his allegations contained in complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.PC as this aspect is highly technical in nature and could have been dealt with effectively only by the police after registration of the case because police had got all the powers to collect specimen hand writings of the suspects and sending them to FSL so as to find out the actual culprit responsible for the said deeds/mis­deeds. 13 Accordingly, the present revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside and Ld. Magistrate is directed to issue necessary directions to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.PC as police had failed to take any action on his complaint dated 19.10.2014 addressed to SHO as well as complaint dated 03.11.2014 addressed to DCP concerned in compliance of Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.PC.

14 The Ld. Magistrate shall direct the SHO concerned to register the FIR under the appropriate sections of law and file his compliance report within three working days before the Court of Ld. MM who shall also duly supervise and monitor the investigation as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakiri Vasu’s Case.

15 With these directions, the revision petition, as filed, stands disposed of.

16 TCR, if any, alongwith copy of the order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court through Ld. CMM(SE) for necessary perusal and compliance.

17 Revision file be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities in this regard.

announced in the open court on 27th February, 2016
(LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
Additional Sessions Judge­04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *