Delhi District Court
Smt. Santra Devi vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 November, 2022
DLNW010121682019
Presented on : 10-12-2019
Registered on : 11-12-2019
Decided on : 18-11-2022
Duration : 2 years,11 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL. JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr. Rev/239/2019
1. SMT. SANTRA DEVI
W/o Sh. Ramphal,
2. BIJENDER
S/o Sh. Ramphal,
3. SMT. JYOTI
W/o Sh. Bijender,
4. USHA
D/o Sh. Ramphal,
5. PREETI
D/o Sh. Ramphal,
All R/o H.No. 338,
Main Road, Shalimar Gaon,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
.... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
2. OM PRAKASH
CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 1 of 8
S/o Sh. Attar Singh,
3. KRISHAN KUMAR
S/o Sh. Attar Singh,
4. SMT. BIMLA
W/o Sh. Om Prakash,
5. VIJAY
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
6. HARISH
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
7. SMT. SUMAN
W/o Sh. Vijay,
8. SMT. HEMLATA
W/o Sh. Harish,
All R/o House No. A-337,
Main Road, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
.... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for appearing for Petitioners : Sh. Rajiv Hooda
APP for State/respondent No.1 : Sh. Kumar Sanjay.
Advocate appearing for respondents No. 2 to 8 : Sh. Mayank Goyal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 18-11-2022)
1. This revision petition under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners/revisionists against the order dated 29.10.2019 passed by the Court of Sh. Rajender Pal, Ld. Special Executive Magistrate, North West District, Jahangirpuri, Delhi (herein after called the impugned order) for summoning the CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 2 of 8 petitioners vide notice under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C in a kalandra under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C in File No. 333 dated 29.10.2019, GD No. 043 dated 24.10.2019 P.S Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which was fixed before Ld. SEM for 20.12.2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners received notices under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C from the Court of Sh. Rajender Pal, Ld. SEM, North West District, Jahangirpuri, Delhi with directions to appear before the Court on 21.11.2019 to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one surety in the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. However, as per the prosecution case, on receipt of DD No. 43 dated 24.10.2019 made by IO against the petitioners and opposite party, the IO made a false kalandra against them instead of taking action against the opposite party.
3. It is contended that the true facts are that the petitioner No.1 Smt. Santra Devi made a written complaint dated 16.09.2019 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and senior police officers against the opposite party/respondents No. 2 to 8 for registration of case against them and for providing protection to the complainant and her family members as the above said persons had inimical terms with the petitioners for the last about 17 years and they were harassing her in one way or another.
4. It is further contended that on 29.11.2002, Om Prakash and his wife Smt. Bimla in conspiracy with other family members attacked the petitioner No. 1 with intention to kill her and caused CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 3 of 8 grievous injuries to her due to which her three teeth were broken. She was medically examined and a case vide FIR No. 771/2002 under Sections 325/34 IPC was registered at P.S Shalimar Bagh, Delhi against Om Prakash and his wife Smt. Bimla wherein accused Om Prakash and his wife Smt. Bimla were convicted by Ld. Trial Court for three years vide order dated 11.01.2013 and sent to J.C on 11.01.2013 against which Smt. Bimla and her husband Om Prakash filed an appeal before Ld. Sessions Judge, Delhi who reduced the sentence from 3 years to 2 years. Thereafter, they filed Crl. Rev. No. P.53/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 13.08.2013, they were released on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety each of the like amount.
5. It is further contended that on 10.09.2019 during night time when the nearby shops were closed, son of petitioner No. 1 namely Sh. Vijender Kumar parked his motor cycle outside the adjacent shoe shop of Mahinder i.e. Liberty Shoes. However, miscreant Om Prakash came driving his Eeco car No. DL 8C AP 1465 and hit the motorcycle of her son. Her son came out of his house on hearing the noise of hitting. Then Om Prakash caught hold of her son Vijender by neck and attempted to kill him. The matter was reported to police concerned but the police did not take any action against the culprits. Then the complainant made a written complaint to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. It is further contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide letter No. 4374/CJS-II/2360/2370/2375/2382/2385/2388/-
CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 4 of 8-2394/2396/2400/2410/2441 dated 09.02.2019 directed the Commissioner of Police to take action in the matter but the concerned police official instead of taking action against the culprits made a false and frivolous kalandra against the petitioners regarding the said complaint of petitioners No. 1 upon which Ld. SEM summoned the petitioners illegally.
7. It is further contended that the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order have preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds :
(i) That the impugned order passed by Ld. SEM is without any rhyme and reason and without considering the pleas of the petitioners, hence, illegal and against the law and facts.
(ii) That the Ld. SEM failed to appreciate that the opposite party has inimical terms with the petitioners due to the reason that the opposite party was held guilty by the Court in case FIR No. 771/2002 P.S Shalimar Bagh, Delhi wherein they were convicted and now they want to take revenge, as such, harassing them in one way or other.
(iii) That the Ld. SEM failed to appreciate that the petitioner No. 1 made complaint to the police authorities and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the opposite party for the criminal acts committed by them upon the petitioners.
(iv) That the Ld. SEM failed to appreciate that on 29.11.2002 Om Prakash and his wife Smt. Bimla in conspiracy with their other family members attacked on the petitioner No. 1 with intention to kill her due to which she sustained grievous injuries and her three teeth were CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 5 of 8 broken.
(v) That the opposite party Om Prakash and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi have been convicted by concerned court vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 in case FIR No. 771/2002 P.S Shalimar Bagh under Sections 325/34 IPC.
(vi) That the Ld. SEM failed to consider the gravity of offences committed by opposite party who are having muscle powers and are harassing and threatening the petitioners.
(vii) That the Ld. SEM failed to appreciate that the petitioners are peace loving citizen and have not committed any offence.
(viii) That the Ld. SEM failed to appreciate that the police concerned filed false report against the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of being heard them and without leading any evidence, passed the impugned order.
(ix) That from the facts of the case, it is clear that the Ld. SEM failed to consider that it is the fundamental requirement of law that there must be some material to show that the petitioners have committed any overt act or any wrong, that any reasonable apprehension of breach of peace can be prevented at the instance of petitioners. Reliance is placed on "Nirmal Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of Bihar" CCR Vol. IV Page 97.
It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the submissions made above, the impugned order dated 29.101.2019 be quashed/set aside.
CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 6 of 88. Notice of the present revision petition was issued to the respondents, however, they did not file any reply despite given opportunity and straightaway argued the matter.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Addl. PP for respondent No. 1/State and Ld. Counsel for the remaining respondents and have carefully gone through the entire record.
ORDER
10. It is the case of the petitioners that despite giving complaint by petitioner No. 1 Smt. Santra Devi to SHO P.S Shalimar Bagh on 16.09.2019 against respondent No. 2 to 8 and for providing protection to her and her family members from them, no action was taken on her complaint by the police. Instead a kalandra under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C was filed by police against the petitioners on which the petitioners were summoned by Ld. SEM, Jahangirpuri, Delhi vide impugned order dated 29.10.2019 to furnish the bonds under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
Further, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as "Smt. Aarti Singh & Anr. Vs. State & Ors." 83 (2000) DLT 219 that :
"The underlying object of the Section 107 Cr.P.C is preventive and not penal (Ramnarain Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2225). The sole object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code is to maintain public peace and tranquility and cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquility or public peace. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was absolutely no justification for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed".CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 7 of 8
11. Considering the facts and circumstances and the material placed on record, I am of the considered view that the order passed by Ld. SEM deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The present revision petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
TCR be sent back with the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Date : 18-11-2022 (Vikram)
ASJ-02/Special Judge (NDPS)
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/18.11.2022
Dictated on : 18.11.2022.
Transcribed on : 18.11.2022
checked on : 18.11.2022
Signed on : 18.11.2022
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Special Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/18.11.2022
CR No. 239/19 Smt. Santra Devi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 8 of 8