Delhi District Court
Cr. No. 102/13 vs State on 22 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. No. 102/13
Surjeet
S/o Sh. Harson Mashih
R/o E 76/22, JJ Camp
C Block, Behind Corporation Bank,
Preet Vihar, Delhi.
............. Revisionist
Versus
1. State, through Ld. APP
2. K.V. Sun S/o Sannu Lal
R/o Indo Camp Ltd. Khatau House
Mughal Lane, Muhim,
Mumbai ( Bombay).
3. Chhutson S/o Sh. Sannu Lal ( Ishai)
4. Jonson S/o Sh. Sannu Lal ( Ishai)
5. Harison S/o Sh. Sannu Lal ( Ishai)
Respondent No. 2 to 5 all
R/o Village Sahbazpur
R.S. Sahas wan
Distt. Badaun, U.P.
............ Respondents
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of the revision petition against the order dated 05/09/13 whereby the Ld. Trial Court Crl. (R) No. 102/13 Page 1 of 6 Surjeet Vs. State dismissed the complaint of complainant after precharge evidence and discharged the respondent.
2. Brief facts as per the petition are that petitioner and respondents are related to each other and are cousins. Father of revisionist had provided to the respondents, the house in which they are living as of now, which was admeasuring 200 sq yards out of the total constructed house owned by him, which was of 450 sq yards. The revisionist and his father started living in Delhi. The respondents wanted more land because of which a dispute arose and the father of revisionist filed a suit. The respondent threatened the petitioner and his father regarding which a complaint was given to local police on 27.09.2007. Annoyed by the same respondents came to the house of revisionist in Delhi on 05.01.2008 at 6.00 p.m. They shut the door of the house and gave lathi blow to the revisionist and his father and extended threats to their lives.
3. A complaint was filed in which respondents were summoned under various sections. Precharge evidence was led where after the court dismissed the complaint. Crl. (R) No. 102/13 Page 2 of 6 Surjeet Vs. State
4. The order has been challenged interalia on following grounds:
● Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence. ● Ld Trail Court ignored the fact that at the time of framing of charge, court had to consider the prima facie offence.
5. It was argued that there are specific allegations against the respondents. There are minor contradictions but they are not such which can be considered as going to the root of the case. Ld. Counsel for respondents on the other hand defended the order and stated that the complaint has been filed to put pressure on the respondents.
6. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
7. Evidence of complainant and his father was recorded twice at pre summoning and precharge stage. Ld Trial Court has relied upon the contradictions in the evidences in disbelieving the case of complainant. Coming to the evidence, CW1 Petitioner started in his pre summoning evidence that on 05.01.2008 all the respondents came to his house at 6.00 pm, shut down the main gate and gave lathi blows to him and his father. In his precharge Crl. (R) No. 102/13 Page 3 of 6 Surjeet Vs. State evidence, he stated that on 05.01.2008 all the accused came to his house at 6.00 pm, closed the door and started beating him, his father, his mother and his sister with danda and fist blows. In his cross examination he says that respondent K V Sun had a hockey and others had picked danda and jharu lying in the house. The two statements apparently have material contradiction on who were beaten and what were the weapons used.
8. Coming to the testimony of CW2 Harisun, he deposed in his pre summoning evidence that on 05.01.2008 at about 6.00 pm respondent came to his house and they assaulted them with lathi and danda. They gave lathi blows to him, his wife and his son. In his precharge evidence he said respondent came to his house and gave beating to him, his wife and son (not saying anything about the weapons). In his cross examination he said that the accused were not carrying anything. The accused persons had picked dandas lying in the house used for cooking. He also stated that he cannot tell which accused beat whom. This is when he was present at the spot, incident took place in his presence and he himself claims to be one of the injured.
Crl. (R) No. 102/13 Page 4 of 6 Surjeet Vs. State
9. There are apparent and material contradiction in respect of the facts of the incident. None of the injured was medically examined, though the complainant says that they were severely beaten by respondents with weapons ( mentioned differently at different stages by the witnesses).
10. It was argued by Ld. Counsel that at the stage of charge the court should not have gone into the merits of the case and broad probability should have been considered. The procedure for the complaint cases as per Cr.P.C. is different from a State case. In a State case there is no evidence on oath with the court at the time of framing of charge. In the complaint case, however, the court has pre summoning evidence given on oath and therefore, the court can consider the two statements on oath i.e. pre summoning evidence and pre charge evidence, to see if the allegations are believable. The relevant provision in respect of the complaint case are provided in part B of chapter (XIX).
Section 244 and 245 provide that in a warrant case instituted otherwise then a police report the Magistrate shall take evidence and if upon taking all evidence, the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has Crl. (R) No. 102/13 Page 5 of 6 Surjeet Vs. State been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge such accused.
The law thus provides that in a complaint case the court after the summoning and before the framing of charge shall take evidence and form its opinion on whether charge should be framed or not. As discussed above, in the two sets of evidence recorded by the court, there were material contradictions, which even if they were not rebutted would lead to a conclusion that the witnesses were not giving a truthful statement.
11. For the reasons stated above and the legal provision there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. Trial Court. The revision is dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 22/07/2014 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ) ASJ02, (EAST) KKD COURTS/DELHI Crl. (R) No. 102/13 Page 6 of 6 Surjeet Vs. State