Delhi District Court
Arun Bansal vs State on 19 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
C.R. No. 53/11
Arun Bansal
s/o. Sh. B.M. Bansal
r/o. A1/78B, Keshav Puram,
Delhi. ....REVISIONIST
VERSUS
STATE
THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT
P.S. Keshav Puram
Date of Receipt : 14.10.2011
Date of Decision : 19.10.2011
ORDER
Pr. Revisionist in person alongwith Counsel.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Trial Court record was requisitioned.
1. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that Sh. Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal preferred a complaint U/s.200 Cr.PC against the present CR No.53/11 Page 1 of 5 revisionist, Pawan Bansal and Murti Devi. Ld. Trial Court recorded pre summoning evidence of the complainant and one witness namely Sh. Rajkumar Aggarwal and thereafter passed the summoning order dated 02.08.2011, summoning the revisionist and the other accused for the offence punishable U/s.323/452/506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved of that order, the present revision has been preferred only by the revisionist Arun Bansal. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that in fact on 10.10.2007, Sh. Rajkumar Aggarwal and Sh. Jai Bhagwal Aggarwal, both under the influence of alcohol attacked on the modesty of mother of the revisionist, assaulted her and even attempted to kill the revisionist and his brother. An FIR bearing number 532 of 2007 was lodged. Chargesheet was also filed in that case and charges for the offence punishable U/s.160 IPC were framed against Sh. Rajkumar Aggarwal, Sh. Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal and revisionist herein and his brother. Later on, on the false facts given by Sh. Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal and Rajkumar Aggarwal, the Ld. Trial Court had summoned the revisionist and other persons for the abovesaid offences, which is gross misuse of the process of law. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that once an FIR had already been registered, the law does not permit the complainant Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal and his brother Rajkumar Aggarwal to move a fresh complaint, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is liable to be set aside; Ld. ACMM has passed the order in a haste, without going through the record and without considering CR No.53/11 Page 2 of 5 the previous FIR No.532/2007, that on the same facts, a police case has already been registered and trial is pending; it is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, summoning order be set aside.
3. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there is no bar in Cr.PC for filing the complaint by a victim before the Court. The procedure, how to Court shall proceed, if there is a police report as well as a complaint, has been provided in the Cr.PC and the Ld. Trial Court has followed the same after considering the entire facts. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that Ld. Trial Court examined the complainant and one more witness and after considering their evidence on record, passed the reasoned order summoning the accused, Ld. Addl. PP prayed that as the order is based on the evidence brought on record, there is no reason to set aside the same and prayed that revision be dismissed.
4. Keeping in view the arguments and the evidence available on record, I found that the complainant Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal filed the complaint U/s.200 Cr.PC, thereafter the Ld. Trial Court examined the complainant as CW1 and his brother as CW2. Both of them have supported each other and deposed as under :
"On 10.10.2007 at about 7.30 PM, the accused no.1 and 2 came in front of his house. When complainant requested accused no.2 for removing his motor bike parked in front of his house, both the accused got annoyed and shouted at the complainant. Accused no.3 also came over there and CR No.53/11 Page 3 of 5 picked up iron walking stick which was being used by accused no.1 and handed over the same to accused no.1, who hit the said stick on the head of complainant. Accused no.2 also gave beatings to the complainant with the same stick. When the complainant rushed towards his house in order to save himself, the accused chased him inside his house no. A1/98, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram and gave merciless beatings to him as well as to his elder brother namely Raj Kumar Aggarwal, who had tried to save the complainant".
After considering that evidence, I found that both the witnesses have specifically stated that they were beaten by the revisionist alongwith other accused persons. They i.e. revisionist and his coaccused even chased them inside their house and at that time, revisionist was also armed with the iron walking stick and also had extended threats. From this evidence, it is clear that primafacie there was sufficient evidence before the Ld. Trial Court to proceed against the accused persons and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 02.08.2011. There is no illegality or irregularity in that order. The revision petition is, therefore dismissed. It is emphasized that Trial Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the case at the earliest.
CR No.53/11
Page 4 of 5
5. Copy of order and Trial Court record be sent back. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in open Court on today i.e. 19 October, 2011 th (V.K. BANSAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI CR No.53/11 Page 5 of 5