CRL.M.C. 3456/2018

Page 1 of 14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 17^th August, 2022

+

CRL.M.C. 3456/2018, CRL.M.As.12562/2018, 29179/2018 &

14684/2020

SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN

…..Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Ms.

Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocates

with Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Mr.

Vikas Arora, Ms. Shivani Luthra

Lohiya, Ms. Asmita, Ms. Apoorva

Maheshwari and Mr. Vishal Gohsi,

Advocates

Versus

THE STATE & ANR.

…..Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for

the State with Inspector Manoj

Kumar and SI Eshter Dazi Duo

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate

for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”, for short) against the judgment of the

learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South), Saket Courts, New Delhi

dated 12^th July, 2018 dismissing the revision petition preferred by the

present petitioner against the orders of the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate-05 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dated 7^th July, 2018

passed in a complaint case filed by the respondent No.2.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003074

CRL.M.C. 3456/2018

Page 2 of 14

2.

The relevant facts leading up to the present petition may be briefly

stated. The respondent No.2 had filed a complaint case under Section 200

Cr.P.C. read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of

offences under Section 376/328/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC

for short) by the petitioner herein. Along with the said complaint, she also

filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the

Police for the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for the

commission of the said offences under Sections 376/328/120B/506 IPC.

This complaint was filed on 21^st June, 2018 which was listed before the

learned MM on 25^th June, 2018 when an Action Taken Report (ATR) was

called from the SHO. A report was apparently filed by the Police on 4^th

July, 2018 concluding that as per the inquiry the allegations raised by the

complainant were not found to be substantiated.

3.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the receipt of this

report, the learned MM vide orders dated 7^th July, 2018 directed the

registration of an FIR following the decision of the Supreme Court in

Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh(2014) 2 SCC 1.On the

same day, vide separate orders, two other applications were also disposed

of, one seeking the recording of the statement of the complainant under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the other for carrying out the medical

examination of the prosecutrix and the alleged accused.

4.

Aggrieved by these orders, the present petitioner preferred a

revision. The same was disposed of by the learned Special Judge (PC

Act), CBI-01(South) vide order dated 12^th July, 2018 holding that there

were no infirmities in the two orders and dismissed the revision petition.

It observed that the Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 had made it

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003074

CRL.M.C. 3456/2018

Page 3 of 14

mandatory for the Police to record the statement of the victim under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. in cases punishable under Section 376 IPC.

Moreover, with regard to the registration of the FIR, it concluded that the

inquiry which had been made was only a preliminary inquiry and the

learned MM had rightly not treated the ATR as a cancellation report. As

registration of an FIR is only for a proper investigation of the matter and

after detailed investigation, if the police still came to the conclusion that

no offence was made out, it was not precluded from filing a cancellation

report.

5.

It is the submission of Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel

for the petitioner that the learned MM had not disclosed reasons for

directing the registration of FIR and the learned Special Judge