Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Saddam vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 June, 2015

    IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA : SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) /
  ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (NORTH-EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Revision No. 11/2015
Case ID No. 02402R0147192015

1. Saddam
   S/o Sh. Ziaullah Rehman
2. Nanha @ Ishtiyak
   S/o Sh. Ziaullah Rehman
3. Sajjad @ Mister
   S/o. Sh. Ziaullah Rehman
4. Smt. Hasina Khatoon
   W/o Sh. Ziaullah Rehman

     All R/o. H. No. B-354, Gali No. 16,
     Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda,
     Delhi-110053

                                                 ................Revisionists
                          VERSUS

     The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
     Through Its Chief Secretary,
     I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

                                                 ................Respondent

Date of institution                    :      01.05.2015
Date of reserving order                :      23.05.2015
Date of order                          :      03.06.2015

                                ORDER

1. The petitioners have assailed the summoning order dated 14.10.2014 in the criminal complaint vide CC No. 421/13 titled as 'Sageer Ahmed v. Saddam & Ors.'.

2. On 01.11.2012, Sageer Ahmed (Hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') filed a criminal complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'the Cr.P.C.') against the petitioners on the allegations that on 31.07.2012 at 9.30 p.m., the petitioners forcibly entered into his house with iron rods in their hands and they attacked his son namely Shahnawaz and thereby, Shahnawaz sustained serious injuries. The complainant had taken his son to the Shahnawaz to the police station Bhajanpura but they did not take any action against the petitioners and asked him to take his son to GTB Hospital. In the GTB Hospital, Shahnawaz was medically examined vide MLC No. A-3462/12. The police did not take any action against the petitioners and therefore, the complainant made a complaint dated 01.08.2012 to the senior officers of the police. He again made complaint dated 08.10.2012 to the senior officers of the police. Finding no action was taken by the police on his complaint, the complainant filed the afore-said complaint alleging commission of the offences under section 452/308/34 IPC by the petitioners.

3. An application under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2013.

4. In the pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined himself as CW-1, Shahnawaz as CW-3 and CW-2 brought the medical record pertaining to examination of Shahnawaz in GTB Hospital.

5. After hearing arguments and considering the pre- summoning evidence, the trial Court summoned the petitioners vide order dated 14.10.2014 which is as under:-

PS Bhajanpura 14.10.2014 At 10 a.m. Pr: Complainant in person alongwith Cl. Shri Abdul Rauf.

Arguments has been heard on the point of summoning.

Put up for orders at 4.00 p.m. (Sunil Gupta) MM(NE)/KKD/14.10.2014 At about 4.00 p.m. Pr: None.

I have gone through the material on record alongwith testimonies of the witnesses.

Considering the same, this Court is of the view that a prima facie case for the offences u/s 452/323/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons namely Saddam, Nanha, Sajjad and Hasina. Accordingly, they are directed to join the proceedings herein by putting their appearance. Process be issued to them on filing of PF by the complainant.

Put up for appearance of the accused and further proceedings on 07.04.2015.

(Sunil Gupta) MM(NE)/KKD/14.10.2014."

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision petition on the following grounds:

(a) The sons of the complainant namely Sarfaraz and Shahnawaz caused serious injuries to the petitioners after trespassing into their house on 31.07.2012 at 8.00 p.m. and FIR No. 234/12 under section 308/452/34 IPC was registered at PS Bhajanpura against them and the present case was filed by concealing the material facts from the trial Court;

(b) The police had not taken any action against the petitioners on the complaint of the complainant as the complaint was false;

(c) The petitioners sustained injury by illegal acts of Shahnawaz and Sarfaraz;

(d) MLC of Shahnawaz is a fabricated documents and such injury could be self implicated;

(e) Shahjnawaz and Sarfaraz attacked the petitioners in their house at H. No. B-354, Gali No. 16, Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda, Delhi-53 whereas the complainant's house is situated at B-22/8, Gali No. 20, North Ghonda, Delhi-53 and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioners to attack Shahnawaz in his house on 31.07.2012 at 8.00 p.m.;

(f) There was no public witness to the incident in question.

7. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners and Sh. I.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent and examined the trial Court record.

8. Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners submitted that on 31.07.2012 at 8.00 p.m. Shahnawaz and Sarfaraz attacked the petitioners in their house and caused serious injuries to them. He submitted that on 01.08.2012 at 12.45 a.m., FIR No. 234/12 was registered under section 323/452/34 IPC at PS Bhajanpura against Sarfaraz and Shahnawaz. He submitted that the complainant concealed the factum of registration of the said FIR in his complaint. He submitted that the police had not taken any action on the complaint of the complainant as there was no truth in it.

9. Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the complaint was filed as a counter-blast to the said FIR. He submitted that MLC of Shahnawaz is a procured document. He submitted that it was not possible for the petitioners to be in the house of the complainant at the same time. He submitted that the injury mentioned in the MLC could be self inflicted. He submitted that the police was called by the petitioners and as such, there was no occasion for the petitioners to be present in the house of the complainant at the alleged date and time. He submitted that the summoning order deserves to be set-aside.

10. Sh. I.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. He submitted that the trial Court had applied its judicial mind to the material available on the record and rightly summoned the petitioners. He submitted that the revision petition deserves to the dismissed.

11. I have carefully examined the trial Court record.

12. The complainant appeared as CW-1 and deposed that on 31.07.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., the petitioners entered into his house with iron rods in their hands and attacked Shahnawaz. Shahnawaz (CW-3) corroborated the complainant on the date, time, place and the manner of assault by the petitioners. CW-2 Record Clerk brought the MLC No. A-3462/12 dated 31.07.2012 in respect of Shahnawaz showing presence of injuries on the person of Shahnawaz.

13. In the opinion of this Court, Ld. trial Court committed no illegality in summoning the petitioners.

14. The issues whether the petitioners were present in the house of the complainant and caused injury to Shahnawaz and further, the issue regarding the place of the incident and the manner of the incident can only be gone into after taking evidence in the matter.

15. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting any interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

16. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed.

17. A copy of this order be sent to Ld. trial Court alongwith trial Court record for information and necessary compliance.

18. The revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court SANJAY SHARMA on this 03rd day of June, 2015. Special Judge NDPS (N/E) ASJ/KKD Courts/Delhi.