Delhi District Court
Dayanand Singhal vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 397/2022
CNR No.: DLCT01-010561-2022
Dayanand Singhal
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass
R/o 21/30, Shakti Nagar
Delhi-110007
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Chander Mohan Goel
S/o Sh. Ram Dhari Goel
R/o 20/22, Shakti Nagar
Delhi
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.07.2022
Date of Arguments : 18.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 23.07.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against order dated 29.02.2020 (In short 'the impugned order') arising from the complaint case vide CIS No. 531044/2016 (Old No. 361/K/11) titled as 'Chander Mohan Goel vs. Dayanand Singhal & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') summoned the petitioner.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 1 of 14 BRIEF FACTS:
2. The respondent No. 2 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') instituted a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and his younger brother, namely, Satnarain Singhal and son, namely, Sidhant, impleaded as the accused No. 1 to 3.
3. The case of the complainant is that on the night of Diwali i.e. 17.10.2009 at about 10.00 p.m., the complainant's servant, namely, Joginder alongwith other boys was bursting crackers in front of his house. Suddenly, the petitioner and the accused No. 2 came there and beaten his servant and threatened him to face dire consequences, if he again dared to burst crackers. The complainant's servant had exchange of hot words with them. After 15-20 minutes, someone knocked door of the complainant. When the complainant opened the door, the petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3 alongwith two other unknown persons forcibly entered in his house. The petitioner was carrying a wooden stick (danda) and he started beating his servant. When the complainant intervened, the petitioner stated that he is a Police Inspector and his servant dared to laugh at him. When the complainant tried to pacify them, the petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3 given filthy abuses to the complainant and his family members. On hearing noise, many people including his neighbours, namely, M.K. Gupta and Amit Kumar reached there.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 2 of 14
4. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner assaulted him with danda on his legs. The complainant's wife intervened to save him, the accused No. 3 caught her and the petitioner and the accused No. 2 assaulted her with danda and fists / kicks. The complainant tried to save his wife, the petitioner attempted to hit him with danda. However, the said danda hit the accused No. 2. The complainant, his wife and servant, namely, Joginder suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3 pelted stones at the house of the complainant. The complainant called PCR at 00:15 am on 18.10.2009. Officials of PCR Van did not help the complainant as they were under the influence of the petitioner. The complainant alongwith his wife and servant went to Hindu Rao Hospital, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. In the said hospital, one police official, namely, Anil Kumar threatened the complainant's servant. The complainant taken his servant to Vinayak Hospital at 02.15 a.m. There, he received treatment for head injuries.
5. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and his son were falsely implicated in FIR No. 206/2009 under Section 324/325/34/188 IPC registered at PS Roop Nagar. PS Roop Nagar did not register FIR against the petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3 threatened the complainant and his family members several times. The complainant sent complaint to Senior Officers of Police on 20.10.2009.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 3 of 14
6. The complainant lodged complaint with PS Roop Nagar on 20.09.2011 vide DD No. 51B. Local police did not register FIR. Therefore, the complainant filed the said complaint case alongwith application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL COURT:
7. An application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant seeking registration of FIR was dismissed, vide order dated 23.05.2012.
8. The trial Court taken cognizance of offences and directed the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:
9. In pre-summoning evidence, the complainant appeared as CW-1. He examined his wife, namely, Smt. Raj Goel as CW-2, neighbour, namely, Mahender Kumar Gupta as CW-3 and servant, namely, Joginder Kumar as CW-4. THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
10. The trial Court, vide the impugned order, summoned the petitioner, as under:
"When the complainant and his wife were examined on oath where they deposed on the lines of the complaint. They deposed specifically that initially their servant, namely, Joginder (CW-4) was beaten up by the respondent No. 1 and 2 and thereafter, all three respondents armed with danda entered into their house and beaten them alongwith their servant Joginder. The testimony of Joginder Kumar (CW-4) is also on the lines of testimony of the complainant. CW- 3 also deposed that the respondent Dayanand was having a danda in his hand and he tried to hit the complainant but inadvertently that danda hit against respondent No. 2.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 4 of 14 The MLCs were exhibited as Ex.CW2/A1 and Ex.CW2/A2 which reveals that injured persons were suffered simple injuries. The testimony of CW-1, CW- 2 and CW-4, prima facie, proved on record that the respondents forcibly entered into the house of the complainant armed with danda. I found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses. The MLCs are proved on record. It is came on record that the respondents trespassed into the house of the complainant after made preparation of causing hurt to the complainant or his family members or for assaulting them. There is no specific allegations as to the offence of criminal intimidation. It is not came on record specifically as to what was said by the respondents at the time of alleged criminal intimidation or as to whether any alarm was caused to the person intimidation or not. The offence U/s. 506 IPC Is not made out.
However, in view of the testimonies of witnesses examined on oath and documents proved on record prima facie offences U/s. 452/323/34 IPC made out. Accordingly, the respondents as mentioned at serial No. 1 to 3 be summoned for next date of hearing, on the steps taken by the complainant within 7 days."
GROUNDS OF REVISION:
11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred the criminal revision petition on the grounds, as under:
(a) The impugned order is arbitrary, erroneous and perverse;
(b) There was no evidence against the petitioner and the complaint case was false;
(c) Action Taken Report clearly stated that the allegations made by the complainant were not substantiated;
(d) There was no fresh injury to the complainant. MLC was prepared after two days;
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 5 of 14
(e) MLC of Joginder does not mention any grievous injury. It does mention abrasion on scalp;
(f) The trial Court did not consider MLCs that the injuries were simple and there was no prima facie case;
(g) There was variation in the case of the complainant and statement of the witnesses;
(h) CW-3 Mahender Kumar Gupta did not state that the petitioner or the accused persons had assaulted the complainant and his wife or servant. He stated that the petitioner was holding a wooden stick and when he tried to hit the complainant, he managed to save himself and police reached there; and
(i) The trial Court did not consider that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter as held in Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.
APPEARANCE:
12. I have heard arguments of Mr. Ishaan Jain, Advocate for the petitioner and examined trial Court record. CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint was filed after inordinate delay of two years. He contended that the date of incident is 17.10.2009 whereas the complaint was instituted on 25.11.2011. He contended that the complainant did not examine any public witness to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. He contended that the trial Court did not consider that SI Ranjit Singh, in Action Taken Report, categorically stated that the allegations made in the complaint were enquired into and they were not substantiated.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 6 of 14
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court did not consider that the complaint was falsely instituted as the complainant and his son, namely, Anshul Goel are accused in FIR No. 206/2009 under Section 324/325/34/188 IPC registered at PS Roop Nagar on 18.10.2009. He contended that CW-3 Mahender Kumar Gupta did not support the case of the complainant. He contended that CW-3 Mahender Kumar Gupta stated that he had seen that several persons assembled in front of the complainant's house and the petitioner was carrying a danda in his hand and he tried to hit the complainant but he saved himself and the said danda inadvertently hit the accused No. 2. He contended that MLCs were prepared after two days. He contended that MLCs mentioned simple injuries to the complainant, his wife and servant, namely, Joginder. He contended that MLCs of the complainant, his wife or servant, namely, Joginder do not mention any grievous injury. He contended that there was no evidence against the petitioner. He contended that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in statements of the witnesses recorded in pre- summoning evidence. He contended that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. He contended that the trial Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record. He contended that the trial Court summoned the petitioner in a mechanical manner. He contended that summoning order deserves to be set-aside.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 7 of 14 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
15. Section 204 Cr.P.C. is as under:
"204. Issue of process.-(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."
16. In K. Sitaram and Another vs. CFL Capital Financial Service Limited and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 725, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"22. When a person files a complaint and supports it on oath, rendering himself liable to prosecution and imprisonment if it is a false, he is entitled to be believed unless there is some apparent reason for disbelieving him; and he is entitled to have the persons, against whom he complains, brought before the court and tried. The only condition requisite for the issue of process is that the complainant's deposition must show some sufficient ground for proceeding. Unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint or sufficient material to justify the issue of process, he should not pass the order of issue of process....."
17. In HDFC Securities Limited and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2017) 1 SCC 640, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"26.....It is a fact that at the time of summoning of the accused, the courts must be careful to scrutinise the evidence brought on record and in elicitation of answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations."
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 8 of 14
18. In Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 420, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the following question, as under:
"8. The question is: how does a Magistrate, while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, indicate his satisfaction regarding the ground for proceeding against the accused?
22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the Court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 9 of 14 If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious mater affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment."
19. In Bhushan Kumar and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2012) 5 SCC 424, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith."
20. Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. The Magistrate is not required to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion must be exercised judicially. The Magistrate can take into consideration manifest inherent improbabilities in the complaint or in the evidence adduced by the complainant. The Magistrate must be satisfied that whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Adequacy of the evidence can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. There must be an indication of application of mind in summoning order.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 10 of 14
21. In the present case, the complainant appeared as CW-1. He narrated the incident. CW-2 Smt. Raj Goel, wife of the complainant and CW-4 Joginder Kumar, servant of the complainant corroborated statement of the complainant. CW-3 Mahender Kumar Gupta also deposed that he had seen the petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3 quarrelling with the complainant, his son, namely, Anshul Goel and his servant, namely, Joginder. He deposed that the petitioner was carrying a danda. In the presence of pre-summoning evidence of the complainant duly supported by his wife and servant, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient ground for summoning of the petitioner as CW-3 Mahender Kumar Gupta did not state about assault launched by the petitioner and the accused No. 2 and 3.
22. As regards contention that there was delay in preparation of MLC, there are contradictions in the statements of the complainant's witnesses, there is no mention of any grievous injury in MLCs and there was a cross FIR against the complainant and his son, namely, Anshul Goel, it can be stated that such contentions can only be gone into at the time of trial. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider defence version or materials or arguments or merits of the material or evidence of the complainant. There is prima facie evidence that the petitioner alongwith the accused No. 2 and 3 trespassed into house of the complainant and caused simple hurt to the complainant (CW-1), his wife, namely, Raj Goel (CW-2) and his servant, namely, Joginder Kumar (CW-4).
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 11 of 14
23. In Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and Others, (2015) 3 SCC 424, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"8.....At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not."
24. The trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it judicially. There is an application of mind to the complaint, pre-summoning evidence and MLCs. There is sufficient indication in the impugned order of the application of mind by the trial Court to the facts constituting commission of offences under Section 452/323/34 IPC. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner. There is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner and summon him for offences punishable under Section 452/323/34 IPC.
CONCLUSION:
25. Therefore, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set- aside. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
26. Trial Court record alongwith a copy of judgment be sent to trial Court.
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 12 of 14
27. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.07.23 17:35:27 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 23rd July, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 13 of 14 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. CNR No.: DLCT010105612022 Crl. Revision No. 397/2022 23.07.2022
Proceedings convened through Video Conferencing. Present : Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2022.07.23
17:35:40 +0530
Sanjay SharmaII
ASJ03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
23.07.2022
Crl. Rev. No. 397/2022 Dayanand Singhal vs. State & Anr. Page No. 14 of 14