Delhi District Court
Summoned In The Complainant Case Titled ... vs Singh Raj & Ors, Wherein on 25 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, SOUTH, SAKET, NEW DELHI
Munesh Devi ............. Complainant
Vs.
Singh Raj & Ors ............. Accused
PS; F.P. Beri
CC No. 173/01/12
ORDER ON CHARGE
Vide this order I decide the point of charge upon the accused persons
summoned in the complainant case titled Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors, wherein
the court summoned accused Singh Raj, Kanwal Singh, Anil, Pawan, Hote Lal and
Prakash u/s 323/341/354/506/34 IPC.
1.That the complainant had filed a complaint in this court for registration of FIR against the accused persons u/s 156(3) in which the complainant stated that she had five minor children and she lived just adjoining to the house of the accused. The accused persons created new troubles in the peaceful life of the complainant and her family each and every day.
2. IT has been further alleged that the complainant's husband was confined to the judicial custody as he had been falsely implicated by the present accused persons in the murder case. It has been alleged that the accused persons wanted to forcibly grab the land of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the accused persons are forcibly trying to grab the plot of the complainant and quarrels had taken place between the parties on previous occasions also.
3. On 11.12.2011 the accused persons forcibly tried to occupy the said plot lying Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors Order on charge PS: Fateh Pur Beri behind the chaupal for which the decree had already been passed by the Civil Court in favour of the husband of the complainant. The complainant therefore made 100 number call to the police and forwarded the complaint to DCP South District.
4. The accused persons also threatened to kidnap the children of the complainant if she made any more complaints to the police authority. It has also been alleged that daughters of the complainant are minors about to attain the age of majority of accused persons used to pass sexual comments upon her daughters. The accused persons also misbehaved with the daughters of the complainant and many times kept evil eyes on them.
5. Several complaints on different occasions were made by the complainant to the various authorities against the accused persons but no action was ever taken by the police. Upon the complaint of the complainant ATR was called and upon the perusal of the ATR application u/s 156(3) of the complaint was dismissed and cognizance was taken u/s 200 CrPC after which matter was listed for pre summoning evidence.
6. In the pre summoning evidence the complainant examined three witnesses, where she reiterated the facts of the complaint. After the arguments were addressed upon the summoning and all the accused were summoned u/s 323/341/354/506/34 IPC as per the order dt: 21.07.2013. Summons were issued to all the accused persons to make an appearance in the court on 13.09.2015 and they were admitted to court bail. Efforts were made to get the matter compromise but no settlement could be arrived at.
7. Then the matter was listed for notice and the counsel for the accused persons argued for discharge of the accused persons. It was argued by the accused that the present case is just out burnt of several other cases pending between the parties. The complainant was interested that the accused persons Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors Order on charge PS: Fateh Pur Beri withdraw the case against the husband of the complainant as he was languishing in JC since many months for committing the offence of murder. However no such compromise could be effected.
8. The accused had been summoned for all summon trial offence and the counsel for the accused has drawn attention of the court to complaints filed by the complainant on various occasions.
9. There are no specific allegations against any of the accused persons, specially in the complaint dt: 23.01.2011. Only on the basis of suspicion the complainant had filed the complaint at PS F.P. Beri. Infact in all the complaints filed by the complainant none of them mentioned specific name of the accused along with specific allegations made by the complainants. All the complaints filed in the different forums talk about the dispute upon the land between the parties which is purely a civil dispute and the case was already pending in the Civil Court with respect to the same.
10.The complainant had also referred to the judgment of hon Delhi High Court titled as Arvind Kejriwal & Ors Vs Amit Sibal & Anr wherein it is stated that :
(i) In summons cases, no formal charge is framed as in warrants cases.
However the substance of accusation is put to the accused u/s 251 CrPC which is technically akin to the framing of charge in warrants case. The accused is entitled to the hearing at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC. The section pre-supposes that the ld. Magistrate must consider whether such allegations are raised which amount to an offence. If no offence is made out, then there are no particulars of offence which have to be read over to the accused and therefore proceedings cannot proceed beyond section 251 CrPC which is implied from a reading of section 251 CrPC. Section 251 CrPC is reproduced below:
Section 251."Substance of accusation to be stated- when in summon case the Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors Order on charge PS: Fateh Pur Beri accused appear or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not."
(ii) If the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused at the stage of framing of notice, the whole proceedings at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC shall be reduced to mere formality and the accused would be compelled to approach the High Court to challenge the notice which would lead to multiplicity of litigation. It is for this reason, the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar (Supra) and Krishna Kumar Variar (Supra) has observed that the accused should approach the Trial Court instead of rushing to the higher court.
The Supreme Court has not restricted the directions in the aforesaid two cases to be applicable only to the warrant cases and therefore, the same are applicable to all summons cases including those arising out of complaints. In Bhushan Kumar (Supra), the Supreme Court has specifically referred to section 251 CrPC which deals only with summons cases. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, this court in Raujeev Taneja (Supra) and Urrshila (Supra), has directed the accused to urge his objections before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC
(iii) This court is in complete agreement with the view taken by this Court in Raujeev Taneja (Supra), Urrshila Kerkar (Supra) and S.K Bhalla (Supra) that at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC, the ld. Magistrate is not expected to mechanically frame notice u/s 251 CrPC and has to apply it mid to find out whether the prima facie case is made out or not. The ld. Magistrate has to frame the notice u/s 251 CrPC only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case. However, in the event of finding that no case is nade out against the accusesd the ld. Magistrate would be well within his right to drop the proceedings agaisnt the accused. This Court also agrees with the view taken Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors Order on charge PS: Fateh Pur Beri by Sunil Gaur, J. in Raujeev Taneja (Supra) and Urrshila Kerkar (Supra) that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad (Supra) would not stand in the way of the Trial Court to do so because the discharge of an accused at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC does not amount to recall/review of the summoning order as defined in section 362 CrPC. The two stages in the criminal trial are different. The first is the stage of issuance of process u/s 204 CrPC when the Magistrate has to satisfy that there are sufficient grounds fro proceedings in the matter. The second is the stage of framing of charge/notice when the Court has to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused.
11.Where in hon High Court has given power to the Trial Court to discharged the accused in the same trial case even in the complainant case where the complaint does not made commission of any tribal offence.
12.In the present complaint one opportunity was given to the complainant to prove her case and accused were also summoned but on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the accused persons I am of the considered opinion that no allegations have been attributed to any of the accused persons and there is no mention of any injury upon the complainant by the accused persons.
13.Moreover the complainant had not stated in any of the complaints, as to how the accused persons were having evil eye upon the daughters of the complainant. There is no mention of any untoward act done by the accused persons to the minor daughters of the complainant.
14. I do not find fit case to proceed further and there are sufficient grounds to discharge the accused persons. Hence all the accused persons are discharged for the offences stated above.
Bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Endorsement, if any, Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors Order on charge PS: Fateh Pur Beri stands cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned to rightful owner against proper acknowledgment File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
on 25th April, 2015 MM-01/SOUTH/SAKET COURT
New Delhi
Munesh Devi Vs Singh Raj & Ors Order on charge
PS: Fateh Pur Beri