Neelam Phaugat v. State Govt of NCT Delhi

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr. P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned Session Court in Crl. Rev. No. 202/2019, titled “Dilbir Singh Sahrawat & Anr. v. Neelam Phaugat & Anr.” wherein the Ld. ASJ remanded the matter back to the learned MM for a fresh hearing. The above said Crl. Rev. petition was filed against the order dated 18.09.2019, wherein the Ld. MM passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed SHO, PS Kanjhawala to register the FIR against the accused person in the relevant provisions of law.

2. Briefly stated, the facts as recorded by the Ld. Trial court are that Dalbir Singh Sehrawat was given in adoption by Balbir Singh Sehrawat and Saroj Bala to Jagbir Singh Sehrawat and an adoption deed was executed on 27.02.1982 regarding the same. Jagbir Singh Sehrawat was a Canadian citizen. After adoption Dalbir went to Canada to live with his adoptive parents and in year 1986 he became a Canadian citizen. Dalbir came back to India in 1986 and later pursued LL.B from Delhi University. Thereafter, Dalbir started procuring and acquiring documents showing himself as an Indian citizen and concealing his Canadian citizenship. He obtained Driving licence, Voter I-card, Matriculation certificate, Haryana Domicile certificate and Indian passport representing himself to be an Indian citizen. Dalbir also purchased agricultural land in Village Madanpur Dabas, PO: Rani Khera again by representing himself as Indian Citizen. In the year 2000, Dalbir obtained Indian Passport. He also obtained PAN card and Ration card by representing himself as Indian citizen. Dalbir inherited agricultural land at Village Madanpur Dabas, PO: Rani Khera when Balbir Singh Sehrawat (father of Dalbir) passed away in 2011 but he subsequently transferred the same to his wife and he also sold undivided share in agricultural land in Village Madanpur Dabas, PO: Rani Khera in violation of law. It is further alleged that even Aditi (Dalbir’s wife) is a British Citizen who has violated law by acquiring agricultural land in her name. Complaints regarding the cheating and misrepresentations by Dalbir and Aditi were made to the various police authorities but no action was taken by the police and hence, an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C seeking registration of FIR was filed before the Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The Learned MM relied upon the Action Taken Reports filed by the I.O. and the entire material placed on record by the complainant, and found that Dalbir and Aditi have made false representations at various times about their citizenship to various authorities for obtaining undue benefits. Prima-facie it was observed that cognizable offence of cheating has been committed by Aditi and Dalbir in addition to other offences under the Citizenship Act. FEMA, Passport Act etc. and accordingly the application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C was allowed to the effect that an FIR be registered against accused persons under the relevant provisions of law.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2029, the Respondent no. 2 & 3 moved a Crl. Rev. Petition before the Ld. Sessions Judge wherein the LD ASJ observed that ld. MM while allowing the application of Complainant had neither considered the facts in the right perspective nor the relevant provisions under which the FIR has been ordered to be lodged. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 was set aside and the ld. MM was directed to re-hear the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pass the order after considering the relevant provisions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned ASJ remitting the case back to the court of Ld. MM is absolutely illegal and in the teeth of the various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, it was submitted that the order passed by the Ld. ASJ is a biased order and has been passed without any reasoning and furthermore, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were not taken into consideration.

5. Further, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his arguments were not incorporated in the orders passed by Ld. ASJ, and the learned judge had erroneously remanded back the case to the learned MM on the ground that the Ld. MM without holding any preliminary inquiry or even checking the documents relied upon by the complainant and without perusing the various status reports filed by the I.O. has ordered the lodging of the FIR against the Respondent No. 2 & 3 under various acts including the Passport Act and the FEMA Act.

6. It was also submitted by the counsel that Respondent No. 2 had no right to file the revision petition before the Ld. Sessions Court and furthermore, the Learned Sessions Court should have dismissed the revision petition outright as the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 itself was bad in law.

7. Furthermore, the Learned counsel during the course of his submissions has buttressed his contentions by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E. Shivakumar v. Union of India and others (2018) 7 SCC 365; Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013) 6 SCC 384; Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra and another (2009) 6 SCC 65; State of West Bengal v. Narayan K. Patodia (2000) 4 SCC 447; Union of India v. W.N Chadha 1992 Supp (4) SCC 260; Lastly, the reliance has been placed on the case of the coordinate bench in Mahua Moitra v. State and Another 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10666.

8. Sh. Vikas Pahwa learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the revision petition filed against the order dated 18.09.2019, giving directions for registration of FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable and the same is not unlawful or bad in the eyes of law.

9. Learned senior counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the various High Courts and Supreme Court have held in a catena of Judgments that the revision petition preferred against the directions passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Reliance has been placed upon by the Ld. Senior counsel on Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa and Ors. wherein it was inter-alia held that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

10. I have heard the submissions and perused the record.

11. It is a settled proposition that this court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. does not function as a court of appeal or revisional court. The powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are of wide plenitude but they have to be exercised sparingly with caution. The object behind the exercise of such power should be to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which the courts exist. The Court can interfere only if there is any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court.

12. In Manohar Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors., it was inter-alia held that:-

13. In the present case, the question of law raised by the petitioner that whether an order passed in an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be challenged before the Learned Sessions Court or not is well settled. The judgments that are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant with respect to the present case as these judgments only lay down the proposition that an accused does not have a right to take part in the proceedings or during the course of the investigation before he is summoned in the private complaint cases.

14. Hence, in view of the above observations and submissions, the present revision petition stands dismissed.