Delhi High Court
Mahtab Singh And Ors. vs G.P. Singh And Ors. on 21 January, 2008
Author: S. Muralidhar
Bench: S. Muralidhar
ORDER S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking the quashing of the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioners on 24th February 1993 under Sections 452/325/342/506/34 IPC before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (MM) and all consequential proceedings thereto.
2. Respondent No. 1 Shri G.P. Singh is the youngest son of his parents i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 Shri Mahtab Singh and Mrs. Raminder Kaur respectively. Petitioner No. 2 Shri R.P. Singh is his elder brother and Petitioner No. 4 Mrs. Tripatjeet Kaur is the wife of Shri R.P. Singh.
3. According to the complaint, Shri G.P. Singh demanded his share of his father s properties at East of Kailash and Nizamuddin East, New Delhi and when refused, filed a suit for partition in this Court. It is stated that a stay order in the said suit was passed by this Court on 7th February 1993. On 9th February, 1993, when the complainant Sri G.P. Singh served a copy of the stay order upon the Petitioners, they started abusing him. They are alleged to have caused damage to certain moveables and threatened the complainant that he and his family would be thrown out with the help of the police. According to the complainant, one Shri Vijay Chopra, an acquaintance of the complainant Shri G.P. Singh, was witness to the incident of 9th February, 1993. Sri Chopra is then stated to have suggested that the matter should be settled in the presence of learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is then stated that on 10th February, 1993 the Petitioners here forcibly entered into the room of the complainant, dragged the wife of the complainant and attacked her with cricket bats, dandas, rods etc. and caused multiple injuries. The complainant Shri G.P. Singh was stated to have been in his bath at that time and on hearing the cries of his wife, he came out and tried to save her. In the meantime, Shri Vijay Chopra also reached there and witnessed the occurrence. Ultimately his wife was rescued.
5. It is alleged in the complaint that the police refused to register a case against the Petitioners and that did not care to record the statements of the complainant s wife or that of Shri Vijay Chopra.
6. Admittedly, arising out of the incident of 10th February, 2003 at the instance of the Petitioners here, FIR No. 47 of 1993 has been registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi against the Respondents 1 and 2. The FIR records that Shri Mahtab Singh the father, had stated that he was attacked by both his younger son Shri G.P. Singh and his wife Mrs. Kiranjot Singh and that he was injured on his head and hand. It is further stated that the mother of Shri G.P. Singh was also injured on her hand. The trial against Shri G.P. Singh and his wife Smt. Kiranjot Singh is stated to be progressing before the trial court.
7. The complaint, out of which the present petition arises, was filed by Shri G.P. Singh on 24th February, 1993. An order was passed by the learned MM on 4th July, 1996 summoning the accused petitioners and one Sri Sushmit Singh to face trial for the offences under Sections 323, 342 and 506 IPC. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for recalling the summoning order. By a detailed order dated 11th June, 2004, the learned MM disposed the said application by recalling the earlier summoning order to the limited extent of dropping further proceedings against co-accused Shri Sushmit Singh. However, the learned MM maintained the summoning order against the Petitioners here under Sections 323, 342 and 506 IPC. This Court, on 14th December 2004, directed that the proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed.
8. The submissions of Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondent No. 1 Shri G.P. Singh, appearing in person, have been heard.
9. Mr. Agnani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners sought to contend that the present complaint filed by Shri G.P. Singh was purely malafide and in retaliation for the FIR that was registered against him and Respondent No. 2 in respect of the incident of 10th February, 1993. He submits that there are numerous contradictions in the statements made by Shri G.P. Singh and his wife Smt. Kiranjot Singh before the police during the investigation in the above FIR and what is stated in the subsequent complaint. Further it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that Shri Vijay Chopra was not present on the date of occurrence. Smt. Kiranjot Singh does not refer the presence of the Shri Vijay Chopra and that the entire narration of facts in the complaint is false. It is pointed out that at one stage in Criminal M (Main) No. 945 of 1999 which was a petition filed by the Petitioners here an attempt was made to settle the disputes but no settlement could be arrived at. It is stated that the aged parents of the complainant have been needlessly arraigned as accused when it is in fact the complainant who was the aggressor.
10. It appears that at the pre-summoning stage, the statement of Sri Vijay Chopra was recorded by the learned MM as CW 3. He stood by what has been stated in the complaint. Further Shri G.P. Singh and his wife Smt. Kiranjot Singh were examined as CW-1 and CW-2 respectively. In the order declining to recall the summoning order, a reference has also been made by learned MM to the statement recorded of Smt. Kiranjot Singh under Section 161 Cr.PC which substantially corroborates what has been stated in the complaint. The MLC showing that Smt. Kiranjot Singh suffered simple injuries was also examined by the learned MM. On the basis of the above materials, the learned MM declined to recall the summoning order passed by the predecessor on 4th July 1996.
11. At the present stage, in order to determine whether a case has been made out for quashing of the criminal proceedings in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court is not expected to analyze the evidence in great detail and give a definite finding on the guilt or otherwise of the parties facing trial. The limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court is to examine whether there is material on record to bring out a prima facie case as to the commission of offences by the accused in the manner alleged by the complainant and whether on the basis of the materials on record at the summoning stage, the learned MM was justified in summoning the accused.
12. On going through the records of the case including the complaint, the pre-summoning evidence and other documents placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is no prima facie case made out for summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 323, 342 and 506 IPC. Not only the complaint, but the statements of the witnesses attribute a specific role to each of the petitioners in the alleged assault of Respondent No. 2. The MLC also shows that she suffered simple injuries. In the circumstances, no case has been made out for interference by this Court under Section 482 CrPC.
13. It is indeed unfortunate that the disputes among the family members have also resulted in criminal proceedings between the father and his son. Even now, if the parties make a sincere attempt at resolving their differences, they can approach the learned trial court for compounding of the offences in terms of Section 320 CrPC. This dispute has been pending for nearly 15 years and the parties should really consider whether it is worthwhile for them to continue to litigate against each other in this manner. Any efforts by the trial court to bring about a reconciliation would be welcome.
14. It is clarified that no observation made by this Court in the present order should be construed as a reflection on the merits of the case. That is a matter for the determination of the trial court as and when the trial concludes.
15. With the above observations, this Court dismisses the present petition with no orders as to costs. The interim order dated 14th December 2004 stands vacated. The pending application also stands dismissed.
16. As and when the Petitioners file an application before the learned MM seeking exemption from personal appearance, that will be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that both Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are senior citizens and Petitioner No. 4 is a woman.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the court of the learned MM in whose court the case the complaint tiled G.P. Singh v. Mahtab Singh and Ors. is pending within five days.