Delhi District Court
Shiv Narain & Anr. vs State Page No. 5 Out Of 5 Pages on 20 August, 2016
Case No. 58371/2016
order was not a reasoned order. Having regard to totality of facts and
circumstances, this court finds n o illegality, procedural irregularity or
impropriety in the impugned order passed by Learned Trial Court. No
interference is therefore, called for therein. In the result, revision petition
is dismissed.
9. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order to the Trial
Court. Revision File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
on 20 th August 2016 Special Judge-CBI (PC Act)-06
THC/Delhi/20.08.2016
Shiv Narain & Anr. vs State Page No. 5 out of 5 Pages
Case No. 58371/2016
them and that Anand used to beat Archana whereas Shiv Narain and
Brijesh, petitioners used to instigate Anand. They had given Anadn
Rs.75,000/- but despite that, those people were demanding more money
and used to threat her and they used to tell his sister that she should
bring money otherwise she would be killed and that Shiv Narain, Brijesh
and Anand had killed his sister by administering poison to her.
7. In UP Pollution Control Board vs Mohan Meakins Ltd.1 as well
as in Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports vs Roshanlal Aggarwal &
ors.2, Hon'ble Apex Court held that Magistrate was not required to record
reason at the stage of issuing the process against the accused and thus, it is
not legally necessary for the Magistrate to give detailed reason while issuing
process u/s 204 Cr. P. C if there is material to support the opinion of a
Magistrate in exercising its power, revisional Court will not interfere with the
same, only because it forms a different opinion on same material. In
"Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs State & Anr.3" it was noted that at the stage of
issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is
only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for
proceeding against the accused.
8. In view of the aforenoted legal position as well as the
statement of witnesses recorded on oath u/s 164 Cr.P.C, order passed by
the Magistrate can not be faulted with only on the ground that summoning
1 (2000) 3 SCC 745
2 (2003) 4 SCC 139
3 2012 (3) JCC 1625
Shiv Narain & Anr. vs State Page No. 4 out of 5 Pages
Case No. 58371/2016
independent witness to the incident. Sh.Ilahi submits that Ld trial court
has not passed a detailed and a reasoned order.
5. Per contra, Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld Addl. PP for the state
submits that the petitioners have been summoned by the trial court for
the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and 109 IPC and prosecution witnesses
namely Somwati and Nikesh in their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C have
spoken about the role of petitioners. Ld PP submits that at the stage of
cognizance, Ld Magistrate has to peruse the entire material on record
and has not to go into the relative probative value of different
statements at that stage which are required to be considered by the trial
court at the subsequent stages.
6. This court has perused the material on record. Somwati,
complainant in her deposition u/s 164 Cr.P.C recorded by Ld MM on 8th
April 2016, has stated that before 21st September 2015, Anand and his
brother Shiv Narain (petitioner herein) and his son known as Sidh had
told Archana to bring more money from her house and when her
daughter (deceased Archana) did not bring money, then she was killed
by poisoning. She further stated that her daughter (deceased) had been
killed by Anand, Shiv Narain and his son Sidh by administering poisonous
substance as they were demanding money. Similarly, in his deposition
u/s 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate, PW Nikesh S/o Bhagat Singh has
stated that Anand, Shiv Narain & Brijesh S/o Shiv Narain (petitioners
herein), all the three persons had killed his sister Archana by
administering poison and these people were demanding money from
Shiv Narain & Anr. vs State Page No. 3 out of 5 Pages
Case No. 58371/2016
3. Aggrieved with order dated 8th July 2016, whereby
petitioners have been summoned by the Ld trial court, this revision is
preferred by them. Operative portion of impugned order reads as under:
"Submissions heard. Charge-sheet perused. On the
basis of charge-sheet, I take cognizance of offence
punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section
109 IPC. Copies of the charge-sheet alongwith CD
containing its hash value be supplied to accused
Anand against acknowledgment. Issue summons to
accused Shiv Narayan and Brijesh for 22.07.2016."
4. Sh. Mohd. Ilahi, Ld counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the IO had recorded statements of Purnima and Nukul who
were the daughter and son respectively of deceased Archana on 21st
September 2015 and in the said statements, these witnesses had not
spoken anything against the petitioners and on 22nd September 2015,
statement of Bhagat Singh, father of the deceased was recorded by the
IO and even he had not uttered anything against the petitioners. It is
submitted that on 8th April 2015, statement of two witnesses namely
complainant Somwati and her son Nikesh were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C
wherein the name of the petitioners had come up and of petitioner's
name had also not emerged in the statement of Purnima recorded on 12th
March 2016. Ld counsel for petitioners further argued that no other
witness has stated that they had seen the petitioners administering any
poisonous substance to the deceased Archana and there is no
Shiv Narain & Anr. vs State Page No. 2 out of 5 Pages
Case No. 58371/2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT)-06, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Case No. 58371/2016
Criminal Revision No. 79/2016
1. Shiv Narain S/o Sh. Budh Ram,
2. Brijesh S/o Sh. Shiv Narain
Both R/o R-234, General Market
Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-55 .....Petitioners
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) .....Respondent
Instituted on : 6 th August 2016
Arguments on : 20 th August 2016
Decided on : 20 th August 2016
ORDER
1. This revision U/S 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is preferred against order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Court of Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld ACMM, (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby the petitioners have been summoned for offences u/s 302/34 IPC & Section 109 IPC.
2. In brief, facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a complaint case u/s 200 Cr.P.C was filed by Smt. Somwati pursuant to direction u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C of Ld Magistrate, FIR No. 128/16 was registered on 29th February 2016 at PS Pahar Ganj. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. On 8th July 2016, IO had arrested one accused namely Anand who was son in law of complainant Smt. Somwati and two other accused namely Shiv Narain and Brijesh (petitioners herein) were also charge-sheeted and placed in column no. 12 of the charge-sheet.
Shiv Narain & Anr. vs State Page No. 1 out of 5 Pages