Delhi District Court
Sh. Sharafraj vs The State on 15 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR II ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 01 : NORTH EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0358722010
Criminal Revision No. 30/2010
Assigned to Sessions. 22.12.2010
Arguments heard on. 03/06/11
Date of Order/Judgement. 15.07.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Sharafraj,
s/o Mohd. Jalaludeen,
r/o A1/2, New Masjid,
Jyoti Colony, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032. .........Revisionist/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State.
2. The S.H.O. Police Station Shahdara,
Shahdara, Delhi110032.
3. S.I. Ashish Kumar,
Police Station Shahdara,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032.
4. Mohd. Farid,
s/o Mohd. Ali.
Criminal Revision No.30/2010
Sharafraj Vs. The State. 1/7
5. Mohd. Umer
s/o Mohd. Farid,
Both r/o House No. C7/29,
Chauhan Banger, Seelampur,
Delhi.
6. Mohd. Rahib Ahmed,
s/o Mohd. Sabbir,
r/o N27, Welcome, Delhi.
7. Mohd. Sabbir,
s/o Not known.
The State through SHO, Shahdara. .....Respondents
ORDER:
1. The present revision petition under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the summoning order dated 30.11.2010 of Ld. SEM , Sh. Subhash Thakural, North East District, Delhi on the basis of false kalandara dated 11.11.2010 against the revisionist and his father. Being aggrieved by this order, revisionist has filed the present revision petition.
2. Before coming to the conclusion it will be relevant to mention brief facts of the present revision petition. One Sarfraj s/o Jalaluddin was engaged for marriage with Ms. Noorin Bano d/o Md. Farid r/o C7/29, Gali No.5, Chauhan Banger, New Seelampur, Delhi on 23.03.2008 according to Criminal Revision No.30/2010 Sharafraj Vs. The State. 2/7 Muslim Rights and customs and it was settled that the marriage will be solemnized on or before 14.10.2008 but in the meantime one Kamrudeen and Rahis i.e. respondent No.6, brother in law (Jeeja) of Ms. Noorin Bano visited their house and started abusing the revisionist as well as Noorin Bano and refused to marry with the revisionis,t and Ms. Noorin Bano was badly confined by the Kamrudeen and respondent No.6. In this regard revisionist filed an complaint before the PS Bhajanpura, regarding to confinement of his future wife Ms. Noorin Bano and on the complaint of the revisionist IO ASI Rameshwar Dass called all the persons from both sides and also recorded statement of Ms. Noorin Bano on 05.02.2009 but police did not take any action against the guilty persons depsite recording the statement of Ms. Noorin Bano. It is also stated that on 28.04.2009 the respondent No.6 Rahis had attacked revisionist alongwith his associate with dangerous weapons with a intention to kill him and on this fact an FIR No.191/09 u/s 324/341/506 IPC PS Shahdara was registered against the respondent No.6 which is pending before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
3. It is further stated that revisionist filed an application before the RTI Cell against SI Ashish Kumar for not taking any action on the order No.3199/32000 dated 10.09.2010 of DCP till date, due to the said reason SI Ashish Kumar i.e. respondent No.3 become aggressive and registered a false kalandara against the revisionist and his old aged father without any reason Criminal Revision No.30/2010 Sharafraj Vs. The State. 3/7 or cause. It is further stated that complainant has created a false and frivolous ground to initiate process u/s 111 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner/revisionist. Accordingly, police had filed a kalandara in the court of Ld. SEM on 11.11.2010 along with notice u/s 111 Cr.P.C. Ld. SEM vide order dated 30.11.2010 passed summoning order against revisionist and his father.
4. On receiving revision petition trial court record was summoned and Ld. APP represented the state.
5. Respondent No.2 and 3 had filed their respective replies to the present revision petition and claimed that as per the statement given by the alleged persons, Noorin Bano d/o Farid r/o C7/29, Chauhan Banger, Seelampur, Delhi was engaged to the revisionist but after some time the engagement was broken because of the character of the revisionist and since then revisionist and his father had started making false complaints in different police station and also started mounting pressure upon respondents.
6. To reply of Respondent No.2 and 3, revisionist had filed preliminary objections and stated that reply filed by the respondents is false and fabricated with a view to save their own skin and concealed true material facts from this Hon'ble Court. After completion of pleadings matter was listed for arguments.
Criminal Revision No.30/2010 Sharafraj Vs. The State. 4/7
7. Both the parties had advanced their respective arguments. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for revisionist argued and submitted that Hon'ble SEM has wrongly summoned to the revisionist on the basis of wrong and false information given by the respondent No.3 inconnivance and incollusion with the respondent No.4 to 7 and their associates.
8. It is further argued that respondent No.2 and 3 did not comply with the order No.31993200 dated 10.09.2010 passed by Hon'ble Additinal Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi and made false kalandara against the revisionist and his old aged father without any cause or reason.
9. It is further argued that respondent No.3 never called to the revisionist to record his statement regarding the present kalandara and did not entertain the complaints of the revisionist and falsely implicated him in this false kalandara. On these grounds Ld. counsel for revisionist has prayed that the order of Ld. SEM dated 30.11.2010 may kindly be set aside and the revisionist and his father may please be discharged and the respondent No.2 may please be directed to compliance with the order dated 10.09.2010 vide order No.31993200.
10.On other hand Ld. APP for state has submitted that the order of Ld. SEM dated 30.11.2010 is correct and legal and there is no illegality in the order of Criminal Revision No.30/2010 Sharafraj Vs. The State. 5/7 Ld. SEM and Ld. SEM has power to summon the parties.
11.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that the court of SEM had initiated proceedings vide order dated 30.11.2010 by issuing the summon to respondents, present revisionist. Before coming to the conclusion it is necessary to reproudced the relevant sections of the proceedigns under revision.
Section 107 Cr.P.C.
"Security for keeping the peace in other cases (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace of disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond (with or without sureties) for keeping the peace of such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction."
Section 150 Cr.P.C.
Information of design to commit cognizable offences. Every police officer receiving information of design to commit any cognizable offence shall communicate such information to the police officer to whom he is Criminal Revision No.30/2010 Sharafraj Vs. The State. 6/7 subordinate, and to any other officer whose duty it is to prevent or take cognizance of the commission of any such offence."
12.Section 107 Cr.P.C. applies where magistrate on information is of opinion that unless prevented from so acting a person is likely to act to the detriment of public peace and tranquility - Supreme Court , 1971 SC 2486.
13.Since, on perusal of record it is revealed that revisionist/petitioner had been engaged with Ms. Noorin Bano and later on, engagement between revisionist and Ms. Noorin Bano was broken down because of bad character of revisionist,on this present revisionist levelled allegations and filed complaints and during inquiry preventive action U/S 107/150 Cr. P.C. was taken against both the parties. Accordingly, this court after taking into consideration arguments, reply and circumstances of the present petition. At this stage, this court comes to the conclusion and finds that there is no illegality, incorrectness and impropriety in the order of ld. SEM dated 30.11.2010. Hence, revision petition is not maintainable and dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before Ld. SEM on 21.07.2011. Copy of this order be sent to ld. trial court along with trial court record, if any. Revision petition be consigned to record room .
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15.07.2011 ( RAMESH KUMARII ) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/ NE 01 KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI Criminal Revision No.30/2010 Sharafraj Vs. The State. 7/7