A Sessions court at Karkardooma here has come to the rescue of a woman -- whose house was broken into and burgled and who was later assaulted by the suspects for complaining against them -- by setting aside the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate declining her application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking issuance of directions to the police to register an FIR in the case.
Additional Sessions Judge T. R. Naval, acting on the revision petition filed by the woman, a resident of Shahdara, directed the concerned magistrate to reconsider the matter in the light of his order and pass appropriate directions. The judge also asked the woman to appear before the magistrate on October 18 for securing further orders.
The woman said in her complaint that the theft was committed when she, her husband and their children were visiting her in-laws. On returning two days later on April 3, 2011, she noticed the iron door of her house missing, and found that someone had ransacked her belongings and stolen a sizeable amount of jewellery.
She made a call to the Police Control Room and informed the Delhi Police of the incident and gave the names of two suspects. She alleged that on the following day, when her husband was away, the two suspects trespassed into her house, caught hold of her by her hair and said: “ Abhi to tera saman churaya hai, tera darwaja gayab kiya hai, aur tere pati ki nokri bhi khakar rahenge ” (So far we have only stolen your goods, taken your door, now we will render your husband jobless too).
The woman complained that one of them threatened her demanding that she withdraw the complaint, while the other man inflicted an injury on her hand when she tried to fend away the knife in his hand.
SHO did not register FIR
She immediately informed the police who on arriving took her to a hospital for medical examination. A complaint was submitted to the Farsh Bazaar SHO who recorded it in the daily diary (DD) on April 8. However, when the SHO failed to register an FIR, the complainant moved legally and filed an application under 156(3) of the CrPC. The magistrate called for a status report from the police and on considering it dismissed the application observing that there was no ground for issuance of directions.
After filing the revision petition in the sessions court, counsel for the complainant argued that the magistrate was duty bound to issue direction for registration of the case as the woman had filed a complaint alleging commission of cognisable offences by the accused persons punishable under IPC sections 379 (theft)/ 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property)/ 454 (trespass or house break-in)/ 323 (voluntarily causing hurt)/ 341 (wrongful restraint)/ 506 (criminal intimidation)/ and 34 (act done in furtherance of common intention).
Dr. Naval in his order said: “I find that the allegations made by the complainant/revisionist against the respondents prima-facie constitute offences punishable under sections 323/379/411/452 (trespass after preparation for assault)/506/34 IPC. The offences punishable under sections 379/411/452/34 IPC are cognisable. Therefore, it was the duty of the M.M. to issue the direction for registration of FIR and for investigation of the case u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the police as the complainant alleged commission of cognisable offences.”
Allowing the revision petition, the judge noted: “It is held that impugned order is not beyond any illegality, infirmity and inaccuracy. So, I find merits in the revision petition.”
