Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs Sunil Kumar on 23 September, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE01 (WEST): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Crl. Revision No.136/2013
CC No.568/4/11
ID no.02401R0489642013
Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Hari Krishan
R/o Hasthsal, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi ..... Petitioner
Vs.
Sunil Kumar
Sub Inspector of Police
PS Uttam Nagar
Delhi. ..... Respondent
Revision filed on: 26/09/2013
Arguments heard on: 15.09.2015
Judgment pronounced on : 23.09.2015
ORDER:
1. This is the revision petition filed by petitioner against the impugned order dated 27.07.2013 vide which the Ld. Trial Court is pleased to dismiss the complaint/petition of the petitioner/complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint U/S 200 Cr.P.C against the respondent and respondent/accused is alleged to have committed the offence U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC and Ld. Trial Court vide it's impugned order under revision was pleased to dismiss the complaint of the complainant.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner/complainant has filed present revision petition. The record of Ld. Crl. Rev. No.136/13 Sanjeev Kr. Vs. Sunil Kr. Page 1 of 6 2 Trial Court also requisitioned and perused.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the complainant and his two witnesses recorded in the Ld. Trial Court. It is also submitted that respondent was an IO in an other case and the petitioner had filed an application in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate U/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the respondent had filed the status report therein and in the night on dated 19.03.2011 the respondent had arrived in the house of the complainant/petitioner and threatened to the petitioner to withdraw the said criminal case with his service revolver and committed the offences punishable U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC and the petitioner has also filed a complaint before the DCP but the DCP has failed to take action so, the petitioner has resorted to file the complaint as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and petitioner had led the preliminary evidence and petitioner has examined himself as CW1 and whereas Smt. Urmila Devi has been examined as CW2 and Manju Sharma as CW3 and there was sufficient material on the record of Ld. Trial Court to issue the process to respondent. But, Ld. Trial Court has committed grave error while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner and submitted that since the primafacie case U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC is made out against the respondent so, the impugned order under revision is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be summoned. He has relied Crl. Rev. No.136/13 Sanjeev Kr. Vs. Sunil Kr. Page 2 of 6 3 upon the judgment passed by their Court of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal no.S339, SB of 2002.
6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has filed the complaint in the Ld. Trial Court and sought to summon the respondent U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC and in order to fortify such contention raised in the complaint, the petitioner has examined himself as CW1 and in one way of the other he has reiterated the contents of the complaint therein. Whereas his mother Smt. Urmila Devi has been examined as CW2 and his wife Smt. Manju Sharma has been examined as CW3 and both these witnesses have supported the version of the petitioner who has been examined as CW1. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has examined himself as CW1 and the testimonies of CW2 and CW3 were also there and there was sufficient material before the Ld. Trial Court to proceed against the accused and to issue the summon to the respondent/accused for the offence punishable U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC and the Ld. Trial Court has committed grave error while dismissing the complaint.
8. Perusal of the Ld. Trial Court record shows that the Ld. Trial Court has sough the report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West. Record of Ld. Trial Court shows that the complaint was earlier filed by the Crl. Rev. No.136/13 Sanjeev Kr. Vs. Sunil Kr. Page 3 of 6 4 complainant before DCP on dated 21.03.2011 and inquiry report of the Additional Commissioner of Police, West shows that no weapon was issued to the respondent who is a SubInspector on dated 19.03.2011 and the respondent is also stated to be remained busy in attending the PCR calls on the intervening night of 19/20.03.2011 being night emergency officer and the Ld. Trial Court in its impugned order has also mentioned that the complainant has concealed the material fact from the Ld. Trial Court (in his complaint) that earlier the petitioner/complainant had applied for obtaining sanction from DCP U/S 197 of Cr.P.C. But, the same was denied and since the complainant has alleged that SI Sunil Kumar/responent had threatened to the complainant to withdraw the complaint initially filed by him in a court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate but the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has admitted in this court that the respondent had merely filed a status report in a case earlier filed by petitioner in the court of Ld. MM and since, the report received from the Additional Commissioner in the Ld. Trial Court reveals that on the intervening night of 19/20.03.2011, the respondent remained busy in attending the PCR calls being an emergency officer and no weapon was issued to him whereas the petitioner has alleged that on the intervening night of 19/20.03.2011 the accused had threatened to the petitioner with his service revolver. Since, on the said date no service revolver was issued to the respondent and since the respondent was busy in attending PCR calls being emergency officer, so it cannot be assumed or presumed that the Crl. Rev. No.136/13 Sanjeev Kr. Vs. Sunil Kr. Page 4 of 6 5 respondent would be present at two places at one time. It is also alleged that by the petitioner that the respondent had threatened to sign on some blank papers which the complainant had filed against automobile company in a previous criminal case. But, the petitioner has failed to prove the record of the Ld. Trial Court and any such document. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner/complainant in his complaint that either the respondent had threatened to withdraw the complaint with his service revolver who was merely to file the status report, does not inspire any confidence.
9. No doubt that the complainant has examined himself as CW1 and also examined CW2 and CW3 in the Ld. Trial Court and CW2 and CW2 are the family members of the petitioner but in the considered opinion of this court in order to summon the respondent as an accused U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC it was incombent on the part of the petitioner to show that primafacie U/S 166/167/212/217/218/219 of IPC case are made out against the accused and since the petitioner is also guilty of concealment of the material facts from Ld. Trial Court, as mentioned above and report of the Additional Commissioner is available on the record of the Ld. Trial Court so, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the complaint of the petitioner is found to be baseless. Whereas the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court as should have given weightage to the testimony of CW1, CW2 and CW3. But in view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the Crl. Rev. No.136/13 Sanjeev Kr. Vs. Sunil Kr. Page 5 of 6 6 submissions made by the counsel for petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is no help for the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the impugned order under revision. So, the same is upheld. the revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
File be consigned to the record room. The Ld. Trial Court record be returned with the attested copy of this order.
Announced in the Open Court on dated: 23.09.2015 (Pawan Kumar Matto) Addl. Sessions Judge01 West District Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.136/13 Sanjeev Kr. Vs. Sunil Kr. Page 6 of 6