Delhi District Court
Smt. Neera Bali vs Rajiv Bali on 25 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW: ROHINI: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 10/12
Smt. Neera Bali
W/o Sh. Rajiv Bali
D/o Sh. Prem Nath Vaid
R/o 283A, Ward No. 2, Mehrauli
New Delhi - 110 030. .... Revisionist
Versus
1. Rajiv Bali
S/o Shri Push Raj Bali
R/o 74A, PocketA, PhaseII
Ashok Vihar, Delhi110052
2. State
Through NCT of Delhi .... Respondents
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed u/s. 397 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 passed by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2472/1/08 titled "Rajiv Bali vs. Neera Bali" U/s 500 IPC.
2. TCR has already been summoned. I have heard Ld. Crl. Rev. No.10/12; Neera Bali Vs. Rajeev Bali Page 1 of 5 counsel for the revisionist, ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the ld. APP for the State/ respondent no. 2 and have perused the brief written submissions filed by the revisionist and the entire record.
3. The brief facts, as setout in the revision petition, are that the respondent/husband filed a complaint case u/s 500 IPC against the revisionist before the Ld. CMM on 22.07.2008 against the complaint dated 21.03.2007 filed in the impugned case. After presummoning evidence, the revisionist was summoned vide order dated 24.08.2011 for 19.11.2011. Vide order dated 20.09.2008, the application for lodging FIR was dismissed and he was asked to lead evidence u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 22.12.2008, but failed to lead. The petitioner/revisionist gave a complaint to the police on 21.03.2007 for the alleged offences in question before the present proceeding and that too was given after the revisionist who kept mum for several years before she never wanted to tell all this to her parents and to save her family life. She was compelled to state so because of interest of the child. Prior to this on 12.03.2007 the revisionist moved an application for amendment before the Ld. Guardian Court. This application of the petitioner/ revisionist was not allowed Crl. Rev. No.10/12; Neera Bali Vs. Rajeev Bali Page 2 of 5 and she moved to Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein she was granted relief and her amendment application was allowed.
4. The revisionist has also mentioned in the revision petition that it is the complainant who has been indulging in the illegal acts of illicit sex/anal sex with the revisionist against which she has already made a complaint to the CAW Cell. The revisionist had given an application to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for taking action on the said complaint in which she prayed for adding the offence of an anal sex with her in the charge sheet. The complainant used to have compelled the revisionist to right certain things against her wishes.
5. The revisionist has taken grounds in the revision petition that Ld. M.M. passed the impugned order against the revisionist on the basis of incorrect facts by the respondent and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The revisionist in exercise of her lawful right had filed complaint against the respondent for his illegal acts and which was given to the appropriate authority. The investigation conducted by the authority is the jurisdiction of the respective investigating authority on which the revisionist has got no control. The revisionist, Crl. Rev. No.10/12; Neera Bali Vs. Rajeev Bali Page 3 of 5 in support of her case, has relied upon the judgment reported as 1999 (3) RCR (Crl.) 406; 2009 (4) (Crl.) 663 (P&H); 2007 (2) RCR (Crl.) 252 (P&H); N. Mittal vs. Girreddi Suryanarayana 2005(3) (Criminal) 386 (A.P.), Bashir Ulla Khan vs. Mohd. Rafi 2006(4) RCR Criminal 800; 2006 Crl.L.J. 3549 (M.P.), Bhushan Kumar vs. State of Delhi 2012(5) SCC 424, Devendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Crl. 2009(3) SCC (461), Uma Kant Pandey vs. A.C.J.M. (1997) 2 Crimes 27 (ALL), Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board vs. Bhupendra Kumar Modi SCC 2009(1) 679 and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bojjoori Kanthaiah SCC 114 2009(1). However, in support of the arguments, ld. counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments reported as Om Kumar Dhankar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2012 (2) ACR 1643 (SC), Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mata Garg & Co. Chartered Accountants & Anr. 2011(1) LRC 417 (Ukd), ORG Informatics Ltd. vs. State & Anr., Crl. M.C. No. 2409/2011 date of decision: 01.08.2011.
6. The Ld. M.M. passed the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 which reads as under:
"Heard. File perused. Keeping in view of the submission made by the counsel for the complainant, evidence led during pre Crl. Rev. No.10/12; Neera Bali Vs. Rajeev Bali Page 4 of 5 summoning and on the basis of material available on record, this court is of the considered view that prima facie case U/s 500 IPC is made out against the accused Neera Bali. Therefore, accused Neera Bali be summoned on filing of PF/RC for 19.11.2011".
7. In view of the above facts & circumstances and the judgments relied upon by the parties as well as the impugned order dated 24.08.2011, I am of the considered view that the Ld. Trial Court has not passed the reasoned order as to how and under what circumstances on the basis of the material available on record, prima facie case u/s 500 IPC is made out against the accused Neera Bali/ Revisionist. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 of the Ld. Trial Court is set aside with the direction that the Ld. Trial Court shall hear afresh on summoning the accused and pass the reasoned order accordingly. TCR along with copy of this order be sent back and thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
th
on 25 September, 2012 Additional Sessions Judge
NW03,Rohini , Delhi
Crl. Rev. No.10/12; Neera Bali Vs. Rajeev Bali Page 5 of 5