Delhi District Court
Mrs. Savitri Guliani vs Mr. Sandeep Rana S/O Sahab Singh Rana on 2 April, 2013
319/2/12
Savitri Guliani
02.04.2013
Pre: Daughter for the revisionist.
File perused. Vide separate detailed order placed along side
in the file, I set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2012 to remove
the anomaly with the directions, again to hear both the parties on charge
and to pass afresh order on charge in accordance with law in view of the
above discussion and after finding out the exact status of statement of
revisionist recorded on 30.04.2011 by ld. Trial court. Accordingly,
revision petition stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear
before ld. Trial court on 20.04.2013. Trial Court record, if any, be sent
back with a copy of the order.
Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(WEST02):THC DELHI
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02) , THC DELHI.
Criminal Rev. No.319/2/12
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mrs. Savitri Guliani
r/o 14B/ A2B, Ekta Appts.
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
..............Revisionists
Versus
1. Mr. Sandeep Rana s/o Sahab Singh Rana
2. Smt. Balkesh Rana w/o Sahab Singh Rana
R/o 1C/ A 2 B, Ekta Appts.
Paschik Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Retd. SI Randhir Singh s/o Lt. Sh. Devi Singh
r/w WZ 150, Tilak Vihar, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi.
4. HC Narinder Rana, Delhi Police.
5. Ct. Pardeep Kumar, Delhi Police.
6. Two unknown police officials,
7. State
................Respondents
02.04.2013
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by ld. MM (hereafter referred as impugned order) whereby ld. trial court took cognizance for the offences u/s 323, 341, 34 IPC against the respondents. Ld. Trial court freed respondents no.1 to 2 from section 324 and 451 IPC and similarly ld. Trial court has freed respondents no.3 to 5 from section 324/ 354 IPC. 2
2. Briefly the factual matrix of the case in gist are that on 08.11.2002 there was an altercation of son and husband of the revisionist with respondent Sandeep Rana, apparently their neigbhourer. The dispute was apparently with regard to the parking of vehicles. It appears that the police was called by dialing No.100. The son and husband of revisionist were taken to the police station. Thereafter, the son was taken into custody. He was got medically examined in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, whereafter, he was put in the police lock up at police station Paschim Vihar.
3. The Revisionist stated that she along with her daughter went to police station Paschim Vihar to enquire about her son and husband. According to the revisionist, the police officials asked her to leave lest she would also be put inside the lock up. A specific allegation has been made that when the revisionist stated that she would go to senior police officers and authorities, accused Nos.3 and 4 caught her hair and gave severe blows on her face i.e. eyes and nose. It is further specifically alleged against respondents that the daughter of the revisionist was also beaten up by these police officials i.e. accused No.3 and accused No.4. A further specific allegation is that the revisionist and her daughter were pushed into the lock up by S.I. 3 Randhir Singh, Pratap and Narender Rana. They were also taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for medical examination with handcuffs. It is further alleged that after returning from the hospital, revisionist and her daughter were again put in the lock up along with the three years old son of her revisionist's daughter. The complaint / revisionist further stated that later, in the night male police officials i.e. Randhir Singh, Narender Rana and Pratap came inside the lock up and started asking absurd questions and gave beatings to them. This allegation apparently is also directed against the three named accused police officers i.e. Randhir Singh, Narender Rana and Pratap. The revisionist further stated that she and her daughter were forced to stand keeping their hands upwards and the police officials also passed vulgar and filthy comments on the revisionist and her daughter.
4. According to the revisionist , upon her release, and the release of her son and daughter, they went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and it was diagnosed that the son of the revisionist had got a fracture on right foot. The revisionist also got herself treated for injuries on her face i.e. eyes and nose and on her hand. The revisionist also stated that her husband had made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and DCP, West. However, no action was taken by them and therefore, the revisionist had filed the aforesaid complaint. 4
5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing arguments on charge and going through the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2012, whereby ld. trial court ordered to serve notice for the offences u/s 323/ 341/ 34 IPC against all the respondents. Ld. Trial court in the impugned order observed that revisionist has refused to sign her statement made on 30.04.2011 for the offence u/s 354 IPC in respect of respondents Retd. /SI Randhir Singh, HC Narinder Rana, and Ct. Pardeep Kumar. Similarly, ld. Trial court did not find any material for the offence u/s 451 IPC in respect of respondent Sandeep Rana and Smt. Balkesh Rana.
However, on 23.10.2007 u/s 341/324/451 the cognizance to issue the process for the offences of IPC in respect of respondent Sandeep Rana and Smt. Balkesh Rana and for the offences 341/ 324 / 354 of IPC in respect of respondents Retd. /SI Randhir Singh, HC Narinder Rana, and Ct. Pardeep Kumar was taken on the basis of the presummoning evidence. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dt. 21.08.2012 ld. counsel filed this revision petition.
6. Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments it has been argued and submitted by the revisionist herself that specific 5 allegations of assault or use of criminal force with intention to outrage the modesty of a woman cannot be overlooked. It is also argued and submitted by revisionist that there is no explanation as to why only her son, she herself and her daughter were taken into custody and not the other accused, namely, Sh. Sandeep Rana and Smt. Smt. Balkesh Rana. She again submitted that the accused persons/ respondent and other police officials had acted with bias towards them.
7. Contrary to it, ld. Counsel for the respondents argued and submitted that all the allegations are false and concocted. They are innocent and they have not done any wrong with the revisionist and her relatives. It is also argued and submitted that criminal complaint filed by the revisionist is manifestly attended with malafide and the proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the respondent and with a view to spite him and harass the respondent due to the reasons that the respondent in the performance of his official duty as a police officer booked the revisionist, her son and daughter u/s 107 / 151 of Cr. PC which action in his opinion was necessary for the prevention of breach of peace and for the prevention of any further serious offences. It has also been argued and submitted that no case for the offence u/s 323 or 324 IPC is also made out against the 6 respondents. On these grounds ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that revision of the revisionist be dismissed.
8. I have perused the case file and gone through the submissions of the revisionist and ld. Counsel for the respondents as well. I have also sought clarification from the parties, as to why revisionist had not signed her statement recorded on 30.04.2011, vide this court order dated 11.03.2013. Revisionist clarified that she had never denied to sign her statement but the statement recorded before the ld. Trial Court bears complaint case no. 599/1/10 while she had given statement with regard to the complaint case no.798/1/02, vide order dated 28.03.2013. Having given careful consideration to the clarifications of both the parties, I have gone through the case file and I found that it bears case number 798/1 as old case number and CC no.599/1 as new case number, meaning thereby that both the case numbers belongs to one case hence, statement given by the revisionist on 30.04.2011 in CC no.599/1 is the same statement as given in old complaint case no.798/1.
9. In the matter of revisions this court has limited jurisdiction to enter into the domain of discretion of ld. MM to decide the factual veracity of the complaint case. This court has limited jurisdiction to look in to the order 7 of the ld. MM to the effect that whether the order passed by the ld. MM meets to the standard of legality, propriety and correctness. The main argument of the revisionist is with regard to non framing of charge for the offences u/s 451 of IPC in respect of respondent Sandeep Rana and Smt. Balkesh Rana and for the offence 354 of IPC in respect of respondents Retd. /SI Randhir Singh, HC Narinder Rana, and Ct. Pardeep Kumar and she further submitted that it is contrary to law as on the basis of complainant evidence i.e. CW1, revisionist herself, Sh. Shanti Swaroop Guliani as CW2, Sh. Sandeep Guliani as CW3 and Ms. Kamini as CW4, respondents were summoned for the offences u/s 341/324/451 of IPC in respect of respondent Sandeep Rana and Smt. Balkesh Rana and for the offence 341/324/354 of IPC in respect of respondents Retd. /SI Randhir Singh, HC Narinder Rana, and Ct. Pardeep Kumar. Thereafter, the case was fixed for precharge evidence and during the course of pre charge evidence she strict to the fact that her earlier statement, which was recorded during the course of complainant evidence be taken on record as precharge evidence, which was declined by the court of ld. MM vide order dated 30.04.2011 as in his view the same appears against the law. This order was neither challenged by the revisionist nor this fact was supported by any of the material record. Besides, cursory perusal of 8 the case file reveals that on the basis of precharge evidence, order of framing of notice against the respondents was passed on 21.08.2012 whereas charge has been signed on 04.08.2012 meaning thereby that an error appears to have been existed on record, since the date of order of framing of charge has been shown as 21.08.2012 while charge itself bear the date 04.08.2012, though on 04.08.2012 there is no order of framing of charge. It creates a confusion. At the most it can be ordered to be framed prior to the framing of charge. Apart from this, further perusal of the charge/ notice dated 04.08.2012 reveals that offence u/s 323/ 323/ 34 IPC and again 341/ 341/ 34 IPC, which again raises confusion in the charge/ notice itself.
10.In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2012 to remove the aforesaid anomaly with the directions, again to hear both the parties on charge and to pass afresh order on charge in accordance with law in view of the above discussion and after finding out the exact status of statement of revisionist recorded on 30.04.2011 by ld. Trial court. Accordingly, revision petition stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial court on 20.04.2013. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 02.04.2013 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02):THC DELHI 9