Saket Court, Delhi: In a set of three criminal revision petitions against the decision of the ACMM taking cognizance of the case against the revisionists/ accused persons regarding the First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 376, 377, 323, 509, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code (IPC), Madhu Jain, Principal District and Sessions Judge, quashed the impugned order and remanded back to the ACMM to pass a detailed order.
The FIR against the accused persons stemmed from involvement with the complainant, which began through the dating app Bumble. The FIR was filed under Sections 376, 377, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code (IPC) and the accused was arrested on 16-12-2023. It was alleged that the main accused person on the pretext of marrying the complainant committed rape with her and also, threatened to kill her and when the complainant went to his house to speak to him, he along with his two friends/ other accused persons, broke her bangles, dragged her onto the ground and persistently slapped her. The main accused was released on interim bail on 08-01-2024, first to attend his sister’s wedding, which was later extended until 21-02-2024.
Vide the impugned order dated 16-02-2024, the ACMM, South, Saket, Delhi took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons and after supplying the copy of chargesheet to them, the matter was listed for scrutiny of documents and further proceedings. Aggrieved by the said cognizance order, the three accused persons filed three separate revision petitions, which are being dealt together.
The Court discussed the limited scope of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and said that it is limited to the extent of ascertaining and examining an order of finding on the scales of correctness, legality or propriety or to see that there is no irregularity in the proceedings.
The Court also referred to cases, discussing Section 397 of the CrPC, wherein it has been laid that the scope of Section 397 of the CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceedings. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, it has been observed that the revisional Court has power to call for and examine the records of an inferior Court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
On perusing the impugned order dated 16-02-2024, the Court noted that it was simply mentioned that cognizance was being taken but the Sections under which the cognizance was taken were missing. The Court relied on Omlata v. State of NCT of Delhi1, wherein, it was held that at the time of taking cognizance a Magistrate is required to judicially apply his mind and be satisfied on the basis of the facts borne out from the statement of the complainant and from the report of the Investigating Officer involved. The Court reiterated that for the issuance of process, it is only to be seen whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Court also said that it is settled law that at the time of taking cognizance, the Court is not required to go into the merit of the case but when the matter is at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is required to mention in detail the facts which have been taken into consideration for taking cognizance of the offence. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down in the various authorities, the Court set aside the impugned order and the matter was remanded back to the ACMM, South, Saket to pass a detailed order regarding taking of cognizance against the accused persons signifying illustrations for the offences of which the cognizance was taken, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court directed the accused persons to appear before the ACMM, South, Saket on 07-05-2024.
[Gautam Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 10, Order Dated: 15-04-2024]
Appearances:
For the Revisionists: Advocate Namit Saxena, Revisionist in Person
For the State/ Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Jagdamba Pandey, Complainant in Person, Advocate Aditya Tripathi
1. Crl. M.C. No.6195/2023 dated 28-08-2023.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
