Delhi District Court
R.S. Nirwal vs Sh.Suresh Kumar on 23 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03(NE),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY: LALIT KUMAR
CR No.67/19
R.S. Nirwal
s/o Late Sh.Ram Dhan
r/o K101102,
New Seelampur,
Delhi. Revisionist
Versus
1 Sh.Suresh Kumar
s/o late Sh.Ram Dhan
2 Smt.Jagmati
w/o Sh.Suresh Kumar
Both r/o K101102, Second Floor,
New Seelampur, Delhi53.
3 Sh.Rajesh Kumar
s/o late Sh.Ram Dhan
r/o H.No.601, Village Jantikalan
District Sonepat (Harayana)
4 Manager/Incharge
Punjab National Bank,
Ludhian Road, Election Office,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi6
CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 1/8
5 SHO
PS Seelampur, Delhi
6 SI Naveen Kumar
(MOB no.9711935713)
PS Seelampur, Delhi. Respondents
Date of assignment : 15.10.2019
Date of Arguments : 15.01.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2020
ORDER
1 Vide the present revision , revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 19.08.2019 whereby Ld.Trial Court of Ms.Richa Parihar, Ld.MM02/North East, KKD Courts on the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC of the revisionist/complainant for registration of FIR in CC no.206/18 titled as 'R.S.Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar & ors' returned the complaint u/s 201 Cr.PC for want of jurisdiction.
2 The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present revision are that the respondents/accused namely Suresh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar are real brothers of revisionist/complainant and Smt.Jagmati is sister in law of the revisionist/complainant. That in the month of November 2016, Sh.Ramdhan, father of revisionist/complainant aged about 80 years got paralyzed and was given treatment in Erwin Hospital, Delhi and thereafter at Sir Ganga CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 2/8 Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, Delhi. On 20.04.2017, father of the revisionist/complainant was forcefully discharged by the respondents/accused persons from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital against the advice of doctors and on the same day, respondents/accused had taken Sh.Ramdhan to Punjab National Bank, Kashmiri Gate in ambulance and got his thumb impression on some documents in respect of bank account no.012100030430541 and thereafter respondents/accused persons transferred Rs.30 lacs in their joint account. That the revisionist/complainant inquired from the bank and checked the CCTV footage in which it was clear that father of revisionist/complainant had not entered in the bank and he was lying on the stretcher in the ambulance and all the formalities were carried out in the ambulance and that respondents/accused have wrongfully gained the amount of Rs.30 lacs. That on 22.04.2017, respondents/accused had killed victim Ramdhan and took him to village Jatikalan, District Sonepat, Haryana for funeral and got the death certificate from the community health centre Badhkhalsa Rai Haryana. That the respondents/accused want to grab the property of victim Ramdhan and caused his death. When the police did not take any action, the revisionist/complainant filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC for registration of FIR against the respondents/accused u/s 302/120B IPC . Status report was filed by the police of PS Seelampur wherein it is reported that as per contents of complaint and bank transaction provided by the revisionist/complainant, the offence as CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 3/8 alleged has not been committed within the jurisdiction of PS Seelampur or within the jursdiction of the concerned court. Ld.MM vide an order dt.19.08.2019 observed that court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence as none of the incident has taken place within the jursdiction of the court concerned and, therefore, the complaint was returned to the revisionist/complainant u/s 201 Cr.PC for presentation to the court having jurisdiction.
3 Being aggrieved by the impugned order dt.19.08.2019 on the application of the revisionist/complainant u/s 156(3) Cr.PC, revisionist/complainant has approached this court on the following grounds:
(a) The impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures.
(b) The IO/respondent no.6 did not take any evidence regarding the occurrence from the relative/neighbourer of the spot, where the occurrence was committed by the respondents/accused persons.
(c) The Ld.Trial Court did not appreciate the protest application while passing the impugned order.
(d) The Ld.Trial Court has not considered both the status reports as the IO has filed one status report on 19.03.2018 and secondly on 07.04.2018.
(e) The IO has admitted in the status report dt.07.04.2018 CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 4/8 that 'Dr.Neeraj Jain and Dr.Babby Bhalotra and Dr.Ujwal Prakash of Ganga Ram Hospital are concerned with the treatment of Ramdhan as 'Medical Terminology called LAMA' and he left against the medical advice.
(f) The IO remained silent intentionally and deliberately upon the ambulance matter because the ambulance was provided by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital to the deceased alongwith respondents/accused from the hospital and last detination of the deceased.
(g) The IO has not taken the statement of the relative of deceased as a witness and also has not taken the statement as a witness from the last cremation ground.
4 Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents/accused persons and respondents no.1to 3 have filed their reply stating that the Ld.Trial Court was neither having jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint filed by the revisionist/complainant nor there was any merit in the protest application filed by the revisionist/complainant. There was no question for recording the statement or taking the evidence by the Ld.Trial Court as the Ld.Trial Court rightly observed and decided that the Ld.Trial Court was not having jurisidiction to try and decide the complaint and, therefore the complaint was returned to the revisionist/complainant for presenting the same to the court having CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 5/8 jurisdiction. The revisionist/complainant was having a bad eye on the properties left by her late father Sh.Ramdhan, on which he was having no right. The alleged medical documents are immaterial because the complaint was filed by the revisionist/complainant in the court, which was having no jurisdiction. In the status report dt.07.04.2018, it was clearly mentioned that no offence has been committed in the area of PS Seelampur or at any other place. There is no violation of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as 'Lalita Kumari Vs State of U.P'. It is further argued that the order of the Ld. Trial Court dt.19.08.2019 is not bearing any illegality and infirmity and the same is liable to be upheld.
5 I have heard Sh.Sudhir Kumar, Ld.Counsel for the revisionist/complainant and Sh.O.P.Bharti Goswami, Ld.Counsel for respondents/accused. Ld.Counsel for revisionist/complainant has relied upon judgments titled as Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. of the Supreme Court of India (2) Md.Allauddin Khan vs State of Bihar & Ors of Supreme Court of India (3) Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P of Supreme Court of India (4) Kirti Vashisht vs State of High Court of Delhi (5) Kushuma Devi vs Sheopati Devi (D) & Ors. Of Supreme Court of India (6) S.R.Sukumar vs S.Sunaad Raghuram of Supreme Court of India. I have also carefully perused the record.
CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 6/8 6 Perusal of the status report filed by IO SI Naveen Kumar on 07.04.2018 reveals that on 22.04.2017, the victim Ramdhan, father of the revisionist/complainant was killed by the respondents/accused and they had taken him to Village Jatikala, District Sonepat, Haryana for fuderal and got issued certificate from the community health centre Badhkhalsa Rai Sonepat, Haryana. The status report further revealed that as per the content of complaint and the bank transaction provided by the revisionist/complainant and inquiry, no offence has been found to be committed within the jurisdiction of PS Seelampur, Delhi as well as the juridiction of the concerned court.
7 It is relevant to mention here that revisioist/complainant has made a complaint to the SHO on 05.07.2017, wherein he has admitted that respondents/accused persons had taken the dead body of his father Ramdhan to his village address for cremation and has not brought the dead body at the address of Seelampur, which demolishes the claim of the revisionist/complainant. It has further been mentioned in the said complaint that the respondents/accused got prepared the death certificate from Sonepat, Haryana. Even the death certificate also reflects the place of death as "Jaatikalan Sonepat, Haryana".
8 Moreover, in the entire complaint of the revisionist/complainant, there is no whisper about the fact that incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of PS Seelampur. Thus, CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 7/8 the version of the revisionist/complainant becomes untrustworthy qua the jurisdiction.
9 So far as the judgments as relied upon by the revisionist/complainant are concerned, the aforesaid case laws hold the correct proposition of law , but distinguished from the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore these judgments do not help the revisionist/complainant.
10 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Trial Court dt.19.08.2019 is upheld and the revision of the revisionist/complainant is dismissed. With these observations, this criminal revision is hereby disposed off. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld.Trial Court alongwith a copy of order to the Ld.Trial Court.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
LALIT LALIT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2020.01.23
16:58:32
+0530
Announced in open court (LALIT KUMAR )
today on 23rd January, 2020 Additional Sessions Judge03
(NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CR No.67/19 R.S Nirwal vs Suresh Kumar and ors. 8/8