Delhi District Court
Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs State on 2 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL RIVISION No. 78/3
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla,
S/o Lt. Sh. J.L. Aggarwal,
R/o G5, 17/41, West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi - 110026.
............PETITIONER
versus
1 State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
2 Zardar Khan
S/o Sh. Hikamtulla Khan,
R/o 226, Swayam Sidha Colony,
West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi
........RESPONDENTS
DATE OF FILING : 02.07.2014
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 02.08.2014
DATE OF ORDER : 02.08.2014
CR No. 78/3 Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 1/6
O R D E R
1. This is a revision petition filed by petitioner Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla against the impugned Order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Ld. MM thereby dismissing the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C for nonprosecution.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint alongwith application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C against the respondent with allegations that the accused/respondent, who was earlier tenant of the petitioner, has broken open the lock of the premises i.e House bearing no. 224, Ground Floor, Swayam Sidha Colony, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110026 which is in the name of wife of complainant and accused also removed the articles lying in the said premises and put his own lock on that premises. Further that accused also threatened him to face dire consequences if he raised that issued before any authority.
3. Ld. Trial Court vide order dt. 17.12.2009 dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C and called upon the complainant to lead his presummoning evidence. Subsequently, vide order dt. 25.03.2014 i.e the impugned CR No. 78/3 Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 2/6 order the complaint was dismissed for nonprosecution.
4. By way of present petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant has been illegally disposed by the respondent, further that the petitioner was very much present in the court on the date of dismissal and he should not be punished due to fault of the advocate. It is further submitted that the revisionist is ready to lead his evidence within time if directed by the court. Certain other contentions are also made.
5. I have heard ld. counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the record in the light of submissions made before me.
6. The present complaint was filed on 26.12.2008 and thereafter the matter remained pending for some time for disposal of application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C was never taken seriously by the complainant and the same was ultimately decided/dismissed by the trial court on 17.12.2009 in absence of the complainant and the matter was fixed for presummoning evidence after taking cognizance u/s 448/379/506 IPC. The matter remained at the stage of pre summoning evidence from 09.12.2010 till the date of CR No. 78/3 Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 3/6 dismissal of complainant i.e 25.03.2014. During this period, the matter was taken up about 12 times and on most of the dates, either nobody was present on behalf of complainant or adjournment was sought on his behalf on one pretext or the other. Vide order dt. 10.12.2013, last and final opportunity was granted to complainant to conclude his presummoning evidence and the matter was adjourned for 25.03.2014. On 25.03.2014, thought the complainant was present with proxy counsel but adjournment was again sought on the ground of non availability of main counsel and original documents but the request was not entertained by the court and the complaint was dismissed.
7. A careful perusal of trial court record shows that the complainant himself is responsible for the circumstances leading to dismissal of his complaint. The present matter has never been pursued by the petitioner in a diligent manner and it seems that the same has been filed just for the sake of filing in a form of luxurious litigation without having any sincere effort to take the same to a logical conclusion. If the complainant has not examined any single witness during a period of so many years, his request CR No. 78/3 Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 4/6 for a further opportunity can not be taken as bonafide one. The courts are already overburdened and in my opinion, no lenient view is required to be taken in favour of the litigants like the present petitioner, who are not serious about their cases for months and years altogether. The conduct of the present petitioner during proceedings before the trial court has never been appreciable and a clear misuse of process of law by the petitioner is evident from the record of Ld. trial court.
8. A careful perusal of the record in general and the impugned Order in particular, it reveals that the petitioner has not been able to show any reasonable ground for inference with the impugned Order. Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned Order dated 25.03.2014, has taken into consideration all the relevant facts. It is well settled law that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice (ref. AIR 1973 SC 799). The order passed by Ld. MM is a speaking order in which reasons for declining the relief have been discussed. If the impugned order is analyzed in CR No. 78/3 Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 5/6 light of the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C, no wrong, illegality, impropriety or irregularity is noticed therein.
9. In view of above discussion, the revision petition is found to be devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.
TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order. File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL) TODAY i.e.ON 02 August, 2014 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI nd 02.08.2014 CR No. 78/3 Sh. Manoj Kumar Singla vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 6/6