Delhi District Court
Neeru Bansal W/O Pradeep Kumar Bansal vs State on 22 July, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.S.P.GARG, DJIV/ASJ ND
CR No. 38/2005
Neeru Bansal w/o Pradeep Kumar Bansal,
R/o E/348A, Greater Kailash1,
Ground Floor, New Delhi ..... Petitioner
Versus
State ..... Respondent
FIR No.111/94
U/ss 308/506/34 IPC
P.S.Grater Kailash
ORDER:
1 Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by Shri Deepak Garg, the then ld. Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he ordered committal of case to the court of Sessions.
2. Revision petition was admitted for hearing. Notice of the revision petition was given to the respondent/State. Trial court record was summoned.
23 . I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State/Respondent and have gone through the trial court record.
4. On perusal of the trial court record it reveals that case FIR No.111/94 U/ss 308/506/34 IPC was registered against the petitioner along with other coaccused persons by the police of Police Station Greater Kailash. After investigation the police of Police Station Greater Kailash filed challan against the petitioner along with other accused persons in the court of learned M.M on 23.5.1995. During the proceedings before the learned trial court number of applications under section 340 Cr.P.C were filed by the petitioner. The learned trial court issued notice to the respondents in the applications under section 340 Cr.P.C . The respondents were mainly the police officials who had investigated the case. Allegations against them were that they did not investigate the case fairly and 3 falsely implicated the petitioner and other accused persons under the influence of the complainant. The Police Officials as respondents in those application u/s 340 Cr.P.C also filed their also filed their comments/replies.
5. Perusal of the file further reveals that number of adjournments resulted in the delay of the disposal of the applications and committal of the case to the court of sessions. At one stage an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was also moved by the petitioner. Again at another stage the petitioner moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. Ultimately vide order dated 22.2.2003 the learned trial court after hearing the learned Addl. P P for the State and the learned counsel for the petitioner, ordered that the application under section 340 Cr.P.C can't be disposed off without hearing arguments on the point of charge. It was further ordered that all applications filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C by the 4 accused persons therein shall be disposed off only after hearing arguments on charge. The case was adjourned for arguments on charge for 10.4.2003. At that stage the accused Vijay Kumar Bansal stated that he did not want his case to be tried by the said court. On that the learned M.M ordered to put up the file before the learned ACMM for appropriate orders. The learned ACMM withdrew the case from the said court and assigned to the court of Shri S.S.Rathi the then learned M.M.
6. Vide order dated 6.7.2004 , the learned M.M observed that an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated 12.12.2002 was moved by the accused on the previous date of hearing and the same was pending for disposal. The learned M.M observed that the application was connected to the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C and same could not be decided without hearing arguments on the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. On 7.12.2004 arguments on the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C 5 were heard and the case was adjourned for orders for 10.12.2004. On 10.12.2004 Shri Deepak Garg ld.M/M observed that the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C could not be decided as the same was in continuation of the application under section 340 Cr.P.C moved earlier on behalf of the accused. The ld.M.M vide impugned order dated 10/12/2004 committed the case to the court of sessions. The accused persons therein were directed to appear before the learned Judge Incharge, Patiala House Courts on 20.12.2004.
7. Scanning the file further reveals that on committal this case was dealt with by the court of learned ASJ on allocation. The case is still pending before the court of learned ASJ for disposal and further proceedings in the main case could not take place as the original file was pending in revision petition before the learned predecessor of this court. Vide order dated 21.2.2009 Ms.Pinki learned ASJ requested learned 6 District JudgeIV/ASJ to send the original file. Order sheet dated 13.4.2009 shows that the case is now fixed for recording Garg prosecution evidence before the court of Shri Brijesh Kumar learned ASJ (Fast Track Court). The said case was subsequently transferred to the court of Shri Manoj Kumar Nagpal ASJ (FTC) vide order dated 2.6.2009 by Ld. District Judge I & Sessions Judge , Delhi. The original file is still awaited by the court of Shri Manoj Kumar Nagpal ld.ASJ (FTC) where the petitioner is one of the accused facing trial under section 308/506/34 IPC.
8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 10.12.2004 is illegal and can't be sustained. The learned M.M. read the order dated 22.2.2003 of his predecessor in a different way, then was intended by him. This resulted in miscarriage of justice and denial of opportunity of being heard. The proceedings 7 which were incomplete and in the process of being disposed of were abruptly halted. The judicial process before the learned trial court has remained incomplete. There was no stage for committal of the case to the court of sessions at that time. The learned Magistrate had no power to review the order of his learned predecessor who had part heard the arguments on the pending application. The application under section 156(3) dated 12.12.2003 filed by the petitioner is still pending and has not yet been decided. The petitioner was not supplied the complete copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution and Ld.M.M did not comply with the provisions of section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the authorities reported in AIR 1936 Privy Council 253; AIR 1964 SC 358 and 1997 IV AD (Delhi) 467.
9. Learned Addl. P P has opposed these contentions 8 of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P P for the State and have scrutinized the trial court record minutely. I have also gone through the written submissions along with authorities filed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. After going through the contents of the order sheet recorded by the learned trial court and after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 10.12.2004 passed by the learned trial court whereby the case was committed to the court of sessions. Admittedly the police of Police Station Greater Kailash had filed challan against the petitioner along with other accused persons in the court of learned M.M after completion of investigation for 9 the commission of offence punishable u/s 308/506/34 IPC. There is nothing on record to show if during investigation the petitioner had moved any competent authority to take action against the Investigating Officer of this case for their false implication or for fabricating evidence on record. Only when the challan was filed before the court of learned M.M on 23.5.95, on the subsequent date i.e. on 27.6.95 an application under section 340 Cr.P.C was filed before the court. In the said very order the learned M M observed that this application would be considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Case was adjourned for summoning the I.O. No effective proceedings continued thereafter which resulted in delay in the committal of the case before the court of sessions. In the meantime other applications u/s 340 Cr.P.C, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C and application under section 311 Cr.P.C were moved from time to time by the petitioner.
10
12. in the impugned order the learned trial court had performed its duty to commit the case before the court of sessions as the offence u/s 308 was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Instead of raising its grievances before the learned Sessions Court regarding the pleas taken by the the petitioner in various applications, he preferred to challenge the committal order passed by learned trial court in the present revision petition. It is well settled law that after the challan is filed in the court of learned M.M., if the ld.M.M is of the opinion that the case is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, his duty is to commit the case to the court of sessions after compliance with the provisions of section 207/208 under section 209 Cr.P.C. The role of the court of learned M.M. in cases exclusively triable by the court of sessions is simply to see that the package sent to the court of sessions is in order is not to go through the merits of the 11 evidence of the prosecution witnesses collected by the prosecution. All these applications moved by the petitioner before the committal of the proceedings were to be dealt with by the court of sessions to whom the case stood committed. The learned trial court was justified to refer all these applications to be disposed off by the court of sessions after the committal of the case to the Sessions. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without disposal of these applications on merits, the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to commit the case to the court of sessions. Had it been so, court of sessions could have commented on the order of committal. The petitioner could have brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Court to whom the case was allocated regarding the legality of the commitment order. Instead of doing so, the petitioner just to prolong the disposal of the case, filed the 12 present revision petition.
13. There is no review of the order by the learned trial court as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned predecessor court of Shri Deepak Garg the then M.M. had not passed any order on merits on any application and no such order was reviewed by the learned M.M in the impugned order dated 10.12.2004. All these orders were rather interlocutory in nature and had not decided the rights of the parties finally. Even the revision petition against these interlocutory orders is not maintainable u/s 397 (2) Cr.P.C.
14. The matter is already pending before the learned Sessions Judge after committal of the case. The petitioner can raise all her grievance (if any) before the said court. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of committal. There is nothing on record to show if the petitioner was not supplied with the copies u/s 207/208 13 Cr.P.C. At the time of committal of the case, the petitioner did not ask for supply of any deficient copies. 15 In view of my above discussion, the revision petitioner has no merits and the same is dismissed. 16 Trial court record be sent back to the court of Shri Manoj Kumar Nagpal Ld.ASJ (FTC) successor court immediately along with the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court
nd
today on 22 July, 2009
(S.P.GARG)
District JudgeIV
New Delhi
14
IN THE COURT OF SH.S.P.GARG, DJIV/ASJ ND
C.R No. 38/05
Neeru Bansal vs. State
22/07/2009
Present: Counsel for the petitioner
Addl. P.P. for the respondent/state.
Vide separate order of even date the revision petition is dismissed.
Trial court record be sent back to the court of Shri Manoj Kumar Nagpal ld.ASJ (FTC), New Delhi along with the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
(S.P.GARG) District JudgeIV New Delhi 22.07.2009 15