Delhi District Court
Jai Prakash Singh vs State Of Delhi & Ors on 16 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, ASJ-02/FTC
NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0233142014
Criminal Revision No. 108/14
Jai Prakash Singh
S/o Late Sh. A.N. Singh
R/o K-1/121, (GF),
Chitranjan Park,
New Delhi-110019.
............Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi & Ors.
...........Respondent
Date of institution of the case : 09.12.2014
Date when the case reserved for Judgment : 09.03.2015
Date of announcement of Judgment : 16.03.2015
ORDER
1. This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.09.2014 by which the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application of the revisionist / accused under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
2. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Swil Ltd. vs. State of Delhi & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 820 of 2001 decided on 14.08.2001 and submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that at the stage of taking Jai Prakash Singh vs. State CR No. 108/14 1/5 cognizance of the offence, provisions of 190 of the Cr.P.C. are applicable and that the Court has to take cognizance of the offence and not the offender. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. come into play only at the stage of inquiry or trial and not at the stage of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. which was exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate of taking cognizance of an offence. He further submitted that there was no bar under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to issue process against some other person whose name is not included as an accused but there was material against him on record.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
4. The record of the Trial Court reveals that on 25.04.2002 a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Jai Prakash Singh (petitioner herein) and his wife Chinta Singh. By order dt.25.9.2003 summons were issued to Jai Prakash Singh, Chinta Singh and another accused by the following order:-
"25.09.2003 Present : APP for the State.
Accused Daljeet and Kuldeep are on bail. Seeks adjournment as his counsel is buy in Hon'ble High Court.
APP seeks time to file reply to the applications of accused.
For accused J.P. Singh, Chinta Singh and S.C. Nanda, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed. These 3, accused persons be summoned through IO for 16/10/03 as against these 3,accused their exists sufficient grounds for summoning them for the offences described in column no.7 of the supplementary challan."
5. Thereafter the petitioner on 04.07.2008 moved an Jai Prakash Singh vs. State CR No. 108/14 2/5 application under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. praying that the material on record with the charge-sheet revealed that there was evidence against the following persons who were not proceeded against:-
i) Sh.Veeru Dhasmana, Partner of New Delhi Enterprises,
ii) Sh.Virender Khanna, Architect, Partner of New Delhi Enterprises,
iii) Sh.Shivinder Singh, Chartered Accountant, and
iv) Sh.Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate.
6. The said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order which reads as under:-
"File perused. Arguments on the application dated 04.07.2008 moved on behalf of accused J P Singh and Chita Singh have been heard. Application gone through. Accused J P Singh stated that there is sufficient evidence against other persons namely, Veeru Dhasmana, Virender Khanna, Shivinder Singh and Rajiv Nayar, however despite their involvement, the prosecution has not filed chargesheet against them. With these submissions, accused prays for summoning of the abovesaid persons in the present case as accused persons.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for State strongly opposed the abovesaid application on the ground of its maintainability and prays for dismissal. Record reveals that accused persons have already summoned by the Ld. Predecessor Judge of this court on filing of chargesheet/ supplementary chargesheets. Record further reveals that case has already been fixed for arguments on the point of charge vide order dated 11.05.2009 and the stage of summoning of the additional persons as accused persons has already gone and the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. has yet to come. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case, the present application is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.
Put up for arguments on the point of charge on 13.11.2014."
7. In the case of M/s Swil Ltd. vs. State of Delhi & Anr. (supra) the facts were that the FIR was registered on 28.08.1997. In the charge-sheet one accused was shown in column no.2. On 03.08.1999 Jai Prakash Singh vs. State CR No. 108/14 3/5 the Magistrate issued summons to all the accused shown in the FIR and on the next date of hearing on 20.12.1999 issued summons to the accused / respondent no.2 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The summons issued were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court which set aside the same on the ground that as the accused (petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court) was not shown in the column of accused persons in the charge-sheet, he could have been summoned only under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. after evidence was recorded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court and held that the Magistrate had summoned the accused while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. and that there was no bar under the said provision that once process was issued against some accused, the Magistrate could not issue process against some other accused against whom there was some material in the charge-sheet.
8. In the present case, the supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on 25.04.2002 and by order dated 25.09.2003, summons were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, who is an accused in this case, moved an application under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. on 04.07.2008, i.e. after a gap of more than six years after filing of the charge-sheet against him. The matter is at the stage of consideration on charge. I have gone through the contents of the application dated 04.07.2008 moved by the petitioner. The grounds on which the above mentioned persons are sought to be summoned are more in the nature seeking information about transactions rather than disclosing any grounds to indicate their complicity in the matter.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision petition is Jai Prakash Singh vs. State CR No. 108/14 4/5 dismissed. However it is clarified that nothing observed in this order would come in the way of the Trial Court in proceeding under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. in proceeding against the above mentioned persons if any material surfaces against them in the course of trial.
10. A copy of this order be sent back alongwith TCR to the concerned Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (REETESH SINGH) on 16th March, 2015 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD 16.03.2015 Jai Prakash Singh vs. State CR No. 108/14 5/5