Direction for FIR cannot be issued in a casual manner, says Court; rejecting husband’s plea

New Delhi [India], October 10 (ANI): Delhi’s Saket Court refused to give directions for registration of an FIR as it dismissed the revision moved by a man against his wife and her family members.

The court upheld the order of magistrate who had also refused to give the direction.

The court referred to decision given by the supreme court and said that an exercise for issuance of direction for registration of FIR is not an empty formality and cannot be issued in a casual manner.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purshottam Pathak dismissed the revision moved by revisionist Vikramjeet Rana.

“It is a serious exercise of judicial discretion. It must be exercised after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice. Such direction cannot be issued in a casual and mechanical manner,” ASJ Pathak said in the judgement passed on October 4.

Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence warranting complex and scientific investigation for collection of evidence, the court said.

The court noted that the revisionist had filed the case against his wife and her family members. Both the parties are having matrimonial disputes. The revisionist has claimed that on the date of incident, the respondents, threatened and also gave beatings to him.

The complainant/revisionist had lodged a written complaint at Police Station Saket but no action was taken. Subsequently he moved an application before the court. The same was dismissed by the magistrate on December 15, 2023.

It was argued by the counsel for revisionist (Husband) that the trial court had failed to consider the materials available before court and has passed an order which is not in accordance with the facts pleaded.

He had also argued that in a serious offence under section 307 (Attempt to murder) IPC, directions have to be issued to the investigating agency to investigate the case.

It was contended that the issue of sufficiency and veracity of the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. Therefore, the order of Magistrate being incorrect, improper and illegal is liable to be set- aside.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that the Magistrate has passed a reasoned order after due application of judicial mind. It was contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that there is no need for any police investigation.