Delhi District Court
Uid No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc. vs State & Another 1 Of 15 on 30 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cri. Revision No. 39/1/2015
U.I.D. No. 56026/2016
P.S. Paschim Vihar
1. Sh. Sanjeev Chopra,
S/o Sh. Govind Ram Chopra,
R/o Flat no. 15, Type II,
NSIT Campus, NSIT Sector3,
Dwarka, New Delhi. (Dismissed as withdrawn)
2. Sh. Govind Ram Chopra
S/o Sh. Sonamal Chopra
3. Smt. Shanta Chopra
W/o Sh. Govind Ram Chopra (Since expired)
4. Sh. Rajiv Chopra
S/o Govind Ram Chopra
5. Smt. Priyanka Chopra,
W/o Sh. Rajiv Chopra
All Residents of
House no. E134, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi110028
6. Sh. Rajiv Bajaj
S/o Sh. H G Bajaj
7. Smt. Manju Bajaj @ Yogita Bajaj,
W/o Sh. Rajiv Bajaj
UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 1 of 15
Both Residents of
BU41, Pitampura,
New Delhi.
...... Revisionists
Versus
1. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Smt. Shalini Chopra,
D/o Sh. S K Chopra,
W/o Sh. Sanjiv Chopra,
R/o House no. 233, SBI Colony,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
...... Respondents
Date of filing: 28.02.2015
Date of arguments: 16.03.2017
Date of order: 30.03.2017
ORDER
1. The revisionists have filed the present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2014 in case FIR no. 09/2012, under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Paschim Vihar, passed by the court of Ms. Colette Rashmi Kujur, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 2 of 15 revisionists have been summoned to appear before the Court.
2. A case FIR bearing no. 9/2012 was registered in police station Paschim Vihar on 14.01.2012 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the accused persons. The prosecution after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The investigating officer has charge sheeted only accused Sanjeev Chopra, (husband of the complainant) for the commission of the offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The accused Sanjeev Chopra was put in column number 11 of the charge sheet. The accused persons namely (1) Shanta Chopra, (2) Govind Ram, (3) Rajiv Chopra, (4) Priyanka, (5) Manju Bajaj @ Yogita and (6) Rajiv Bajaj were kept in column no. 12 of the charge sheet. The column no. 12 of the chargesheet contains the details of the persons who are not charge sheeted.
3. The present charge sheet was filed on 22.12.2012 in the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court has passed the following order UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 3 of 15 on 22.12.2012, which is reproduced as under: "I have perused the contents of the charge sheet. I have also heard the submissions advanced. I take cognizance for the offence under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
Other accused persons have not been charge sheeted and have been put in column no. 12. There are no categoric allegations against the remaining accused persons.
Let, summons be issued against accused Sanjeev to be served through IO/SHO concerned to secure his appearance before the court on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.03.2013".
4. The matter was pending for arguments on charge. The copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused Sanjeev in the presence of the complainant on 30.03.2013. The matter remained pending and during the pendency of this matter, the accused Sanjeev Chopra has made various payments to the complainant in terms of settlement. On 14.12.2013, it was reported that settlement had failed and the matter was fixed for arguments on charge. UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 4 of 15
5. On 12.12.2014, the Ld. Trial Court has summoned the accused persons namely (1) Shanta Chopra, (2) Govind Ram, (3) Rajiv Chopra, (4) Priyanka, (5) Manju Bajaj @ Yogita and (6) Rajiv Bajaj. The relevant part of the order dated 12.12.2014 is reproduced as under: "All the above said observations reflect clear allegations of harassment, physical and mental torture, demands of dowry against all the accused persons.
Therefore, all the remaining accused persons namely Shanta Chopra, Govind Ram, Rajiv Chopra, Priyanka, Manju Bajaj @ Yogita and Rajiv Bajaj be summoned through IO/SHO concerned for their appearance before the court on the next date of hearing"
6. The revisionists being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.12.2014 has filed the present revision petition. It is stated that the impugned order was bad in the eyes of law and the revisionists were condemned unheard which is against the principles of natural justice as the lawyers were abstaining from work on the said date. That the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has lost sight of investigation whereby it UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 5 of 15 was reported that the allegations of the complainant were not genuine. That the complainant in her initial complaint did not level any allegations of demand of dowry and all her complaints are figment of her imagination and improvisations. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the case law relied upon by the revisionist. It is prayed that in view of the grounds of the revision petition, the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set aside.
7. The notice of revision petition was issued to the respondent. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has opposed the revision petition. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also opposed the revision petition. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
8. It is also pertinent to mention that present revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn qua revisionist accused Sanjeev Chopra on 17.02.2017. One revisionist namely Smt. UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 6 of 15 Shanta Chopra has also expired on 28.11.2016 and the proceedings stands abated against her.
9. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is against the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court had no power to review its own order. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following judgments (1) Adalat Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal & Others passed in Appeal (Criminal) 91 of 2002 dated 25.08.2004 (2) Anirudh Sen Vs State passed in Criminal Revision Petition no. 498/2006 dated 08.11.2006 (3) Raghubans Dubey Vs State of Bihar 1967 AIR 1167 and Patel Narshi Thakershi & Others Vs Shri Pradyuman Singhji AIR 1970 SC 1273 and also filed written submissions in support of his arguments.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is vast power of the Trial Court to summon the accused persons at a later stage. It is UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 7 of 15 submitted that the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court on many occasions have reiterated that the taking of cognizance of the offence and summoning of the accused persons are different stage, hence, the Trial Court is at liberty to summon the accused persons at any stage of the trial. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgments (1) Jitender Singh @ Motu & Others Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2003 Cri. L.J 2388 (2) M/s Swil Limited Vs State of Delhi passed in Appeal (Crl.) 820/2001 dated 14.08.2001, (3) Raghubans Dubey Vs State of Bihar 1977 SC 1172 (17) (4) R N Aggarwal Vs R C Bansal & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21992201 of 20914 dated 14.11.2014 (5) B Chandrika Vs Santosh & Another passed in Criminal Appeal no. 1969 of 2013 dated 21.11.2013 (6) Rajinder Prasad Vs Bashir 2001 Law Suit (SC) 1253 & (7) Bhushan Kumar & Another Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 Lawsuit (SC) 216 in support of his arguments.
11. A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal & Others Appeal (Criminal) 91 of UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 8 of 15 2002 decided on 25.08.2004 has categorically held that a Magistrate Court has no power to review or recall the order passed by it. This order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reaffirmed time and again by the Hon'be Apex Court in Catena of Judgments.
12. There are two relevant orders passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The relevant parts of both the orders are required to be reproduced for consideration as under: Order dated 22.12.2012 "I have perused the contents of the charge sheet. I have also heard the submissions advanced. I take cognizance for the offence under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C.
punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
Other accused persons have not been charge sheeted and have been put in column no. 12. There are no categoric allegations against the remaining accused persons.
Let, summons be issued against accused Sanjeev to be served through IO/SHO concerned to secure his appearance before the court on the next date of hearing i.e. 30.03.2013".
UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 9 of 15 M.M (West) Mahila Court02 THC/Delhi Order dated 12.12.2014 "All the above said observations reflect clear allegations of harassment, physical and mental torture, demands of dowry against all the accused persons.
Therefore, all the remaining accused persons namely Shanta Chopra, Govind Ram, Rajiv Chopra, Priyanka, Manju Bajaj @ Yogita and Rajiv Bajaj be summoned through IO/SHO concerned for their appearance before the court on the next date of hearing."
M.M (West) Mahila Court02 THC/Delhi
13. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of charge sheet on dated 22.12.2012 has opined that there is no categorical allegations against the remaining accused persons except accused Sanjeev, who has been charge sheeted. The prosecution has not charge sheeted any other accused persons except accused Sanjeev and the name of the remaining accused persons were put in column no. 12 UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 10 of 15 of the charge sheet. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the order dated 22.12.2012 has formed the opinion on the basis of material on record that there is no categoric allegations against the remaining accused persons and proceeded to issue summons to the accused Sanjeev only. On 12.12.2014, at the stage of arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that there are clear allegations of harassment, physical and mental torture, demands of dowry against the accused persons mentioned in column no. 12 of the charge sheet. The Ld. Trial Court has proceeded to summon these accused persons which were not charge sheeted by the prosecution.
14. The perusal of the order dated 12.12.2014 reveals that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has fails to disclose any ground or material on record to change the view taken on the very first date of hearing at the time of issuance of summons and the different stand taken on 12.12.2014 at the stage of charge. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has clearly held on the very first date of hearing that there UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 11 of 15 is no allegations against the remaining accused persons but proceeded to summon them on 12.12.2014 without any change of circumstances or fresh evidence or material brought before it.
15. The perusal of the order dated 22.12.2012 and order dated 12.12.2014 clearly reflects two opposite view taken by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. There is no doubt that second order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of arguments on the charge is review of the first order passed on 22.12.2012. It is not the case that the cognizance was taken and summoning order was passed later on. It is also not the case where cognizance was taken, summons were issued to one accused persons and later on after receipt of supplementary charge sheet or other evidence on record, the remaining accused persons were summoned. In the present case the remaining accused persons were put in column no. 12 and were not charge sheeted by the prosecution and the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has also formed its opinion and judgment to come to the conclusion that there is no categoric allegations against UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 12 of 15 the remaining accused persons. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has accepted the prosecution charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. not charge sheeting the remaining accused persons and putting them in column no. 12 of the charge sheet.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported as Adalat Prasad Vs Roolpal Jindal & Others (Supra) has categorically held that the Magistrate Court has no power to review its own order. The order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is in violation of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has consciously decided not to issue summons against the accused persons shown in column no. 12 of the charge sheet, therefore, it is clear that after examining the material on record and after taking cognizance had directed issuance of summons only against accused shown in column no. 11, which did not include the persons mentioned in column no. 12 of the charge sheet. This state of affairs continued right up to the passing of the order on the point of charge i.e. up to 12.12.2014 after UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 13 of 15 many dates of hearing, the proceedings continued in the presence of the complainant also. The accused person namely Sanjeev Chopra charge sheeted by the prosecution, has paid various installments of the settlement amount to the complainant during these proceedings.
18. It is not out of place to mention that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has fails to disclose even a single reason for taking a different opinion as expressed in her first order. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has fails to disclose on which basis the opinion of the court regarding the summoning of remaining accused persons have changed.
19. In view of the above observations, I am of the considered view that order dated 12.12.2014 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalata Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal & Others. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has reviewed its own order without any fresh material on record. Ld. UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 14 of 15 Metropolitan Magistrate has proceeded to summon the accused persons mentioned in column no. 12 of the charge sheet without adducing any evidence or material or mentioning the reasons of changing her opinion. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has fails to mention on which ground it had taken a contrary view to the police report. Accordingly, the order dated 12.12.2014 is set aside. The summoning order of accused persons namely (1) Govind Ram Chopra, (2) Rajiv Chopra, (3) Priyanka, (4) Manju Bajaj @ Yogita and (5) Rajiv Bajaj are set aside.
20. Revision petition be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
21. TCR be sent back along with copy of this order. Announced in the open court today i.e. 30th March, 2017 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI UID No.56026/2016 Sanjeev Chopta Etc.Vs State & Another 15 of 15