Delhi District Court
Mohd. Irfan S/O Chhotey Khan vs Istkaruddin Son Of Jamalludin Etc on 1 March, 2008
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
Crl (R) No.473/07
C.C. No.2027/1
PS Gokul Puri
U/Sec.323/427/308/34 IPC
Mohd. Irfan s/o Chhotey Khan Petitioner
Vs.
1 Istkaruddin son of Jamalludin etc.
2 Nasruddin son of Allaudin
3 Firoj son of Not known Date of Institution 20.3.07
4 Basruddin son of Allauiddin Date of Argument 1.3.08
5 Jameel son of Not Known Date of Order 1.3.08
6 The State Respondents
ORDER
1 In the trial court criminal complaint was filed by complainant ( hereinafter referred as revisionist) against the respondents under section 323/427/452/308/34 IPC alleging that on 7.11.04 at about 4 p.m his son aged 5 years namely Mohd. Anus was hit by two wheeler scooter driven by Fazal thereby causing injury and fazal also abused the revisionist and on objection from revisionist he fled away but came after about five minutes with remaining accused persons to the house of revisionist and Nasruddin attacked on the head of revisionist with danda and remaining accused persons except Fazal also gave beatings to the revisionist and broken the doors and TV of revisionist by saria and danda which they were carrying and all these acts were due to exhortations given by Fazal to the effect that "
AAJ IS KO KHATAM KAR DO". On alarming raised, mohalla people gathered, revisionist started bleeding from his head and on seeing him thus bleeding, accused Fazal inflicted self injury upon his left arm by blade and danda blow was given by him upon the head of his father for implicating revisionist and his other neighbouirs and revisionist had also made a telephone call to PCR who had removed revisionist and Nasaruddin to GTB Hospital where their MLCs were prepared. Revisionist went to PS for lodging FIR but instead of lodging the same they arrested revisionist under section 107/151 Cr.P.C by making a false kalandra and later on they also planted a false case against him under section 308 IPC after about one month of the incident. The complaint was also accompanied by an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Status report was called from the SHO PS Gokul Puri in which it was relfected that FIR No.514/04 was registered under section 308/34 IPC against Mohd. Irfan, Mohd.Rizwan, Master Munabar Ali and Mehmood as Nawaruddin sustained grievous injuries when the accused persons went to the hosue of Nasaruddin and had a quarrel with Nasaruddin. Police report confirms that proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P>C were held agaisnt party No.1 Istkaruddin son of Jamaluddin and Mohd. Irfan ( revisionist herein) and Abid. Case was thereafter fixed for revisionist evidence and revisionist examined himself as CW1 and Mohd. Usman a neighbour as CW2 in the trial court. He moved an application on 4.9.06 for summoning doctor concerned from GTB Hospital who prepared MLC of Mohd.Irfan and concerned clerk in the office of DCP Notth East Delhi with complaint of Mohd.Irfan dated 6.1.05 but without any justification the application was dismissed on the ground that MLC number of Mohd. Irfan is not mentioned in the application. It is noted that in the list of witnesses revisionist has cited six witnesses namely (1) complainant himself, (2) Mohd.Usmaan, (3) Mohd. Shamim, (4) Tufal Ahmad, (5) Doctor concerned from GTB Hospital and (6) concerned clerk from the office of DCP North East District.. After hearing arguments vide order dated 17.2.08 ld MM dismissed the complaint and it seems that he was carried with the fact that complainant himself admitted that FIR under section 308/34 IPC was registered against him. He was of the view that appropriate legal action under section107/151 Cr.P.C was already taken by the local police. Against that order revisionist has come before this court and assailed the orders on grounds of the same being without any basis.
2 I have heard the argument of ld APP and revisionist and gone through the trial court record. In my considered view ld MM erred initially in dismissing the application dated 4.9.06 for not allowing the witnesses to be summoned by revisionist on technical grounds whereas on record in kalandra under section 107/151 Cr.P.C it has been mentioned that Nasiruddin, Mohd. Irfan and Fazal were examined in GTB Hospital. The services of IO preparing the kalandra could have been pressed to trace out the MLC and it was not within the control of the revisionist to mention the MLC number as it was hospital document. The point to be noted is that even in kalandra under section 107/151 Cr.P.C it has been mentioned that Fazal aged 17 years MLC No./A 4107/04 indicate sharp injury but with possibility of self inflicted. Notwithstanding the fact that revisionist is accused where the victim received grievous injuries, it cannot be said at this stage that revisionist had no case at all as projected in his complaint in the obtaining facts and circumstances where the injuries sustained by Fazal has been opined as probable by self inflicting the same. In a session triable case a Magistrate is required to examine all the witnesses cited which could not be done in this case due to order dtd 04- 09-06. As such order is set aside and ld MM shall proceed with the case as per law by examining all the witnesses and wherever required to summon the relevant record by court order and to call the witnesses who are essential for just decision of the case. With these observation revision is allowed. Copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent to ld ACMM for assigning the case to Ld. MM of competent jurisdiction for proceedings with the case as per law. Revisionist is directed to appear before ld ACMM KKD Court on 7.4.08. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court ( REENA SINGH NAG)
Dt: 1.3.08 Addl. Sessions Judge,
KKD, Delhi