Delhi District Court
Rita Devi vs . Janardan Rai & Ors. on 20 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, MM06,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
Rita Devi vs. Janardan Rai & Ors.
CC No.155/01/13
20.10.2015
ORDER ON SUMMONING
1.In brief the facts of the case as per complainant are that she was a lady guard at Upras Vidyalaya, Vasant Vihar and wife of complainant no.2 who is Ex. Security Supervisor of same school. It is avered by the complainant that alleged accused no.1 and 2 in collusion and conspiracy with each other committed various offences of theft and misappropriation of funds of said school which matter was reported to PS Vasant Vihar. The husband of complainant no.1 i.e. complainant no.2, being then security supervisor had given a statement against alleged accused before Principal of the school due to which the alleged accused developed enimity with the complainants.
2. It is alleged that on 21.04.2011 when complainant no.1 was performing her duty inside the school, at about 10.30 AM accused no.1 called her in the office of Board of Management. It is alleged that as soon as complainant no.1entered the said room, accused no.1 started using abusive language against her, bolted the room from inside, wrongfully confined the complainant and physically assaulted/molested complainant no.1. When complainant no.1 raised alarm, accused no.1 caught hold of her and torn her blouse and attempted to rape her. In the meantime, complainant no.2 and 3 came outside the said room and started knocking the door. Accused no.1 thereafter opened the door with great difficulty and complainant no.1 CC No.155/01/13 Rita Devi vs. Janardan Rai & Ors. 1 of 4 managed to escape. Accused no.2 also reached there and both accused no.1 and 2 thereafter caused injury to complainant no.2 with sharp/ pointed knife like object. It is stated that the complainant made various complaints to police in this regard but no action had been taken. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Vide order dated 20.11.2012, Ld. Predecessor Court had dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC moved on behalf of complaint and gave her liberty to lead evidence u/s 200 Cr.PC. In support of her case, complainant no.1 examined her husband i.e complainant no.2 as CW1 and also examined herself as CW2. She further relied upon her MLC Ex. CW2/1, written complaint made to SHO Vasant Vihar Ex. CW2/2 and written complaint made to ACP Vasant Vihar CW2/3. Complainant did not examine any other witness in support of her case and on request made by her presummoning evidence was closed by this court on 21.05.2015. Arguments were heard on behalf of complainant on the point of summoning. Complainant prayed for summoning accused no.1 to 10 qua offences u/s 307/323/324/325/326/337/338/ 341/342/352/354/406/415/416/417/418/419/420/425/426/34/120B read with Section 376/511 of IPC.
4. Submissions heard.
5. It is a settled proposition of law that for the purpose of summoning of accused persons what is to be seen is whether 'prima facie' case exists or not. Having carefully gone through the contents of the complaint and the evidence adduced by both the complainant witnesses i.e CW1 and CW2, this court finds that there are material contradiction in the testimonies of both CW1 and CW2. While CW1 deposed that both accused no.1 and 2 were CC No.155/01/13 Rita Devi vs. Janardan Rai & Ors. 2 of 4 inside the room when complainant no.1 was allegedly molested, CW2 deposed that only accused no.1 was present in the room at that time. While CW1 deposed that accused no.1 and 2 had opened the room from inside, CW2 deposed that in fact her husband had opened the room from outside. While CW1 deposed that he was attacked by accused no.1 and 2 with the help of accused no. 4,5,6,7,8 and 9, CW2 deposed that her husband was attacked by only accused no.2 and 8.
6. The complaint is silent qua role of each of the alleged accused no.3 to 10 and also complainant/CW2 had also not spoken against aforesaid accused persons. The complainant had prayed for summoning the accused for more than 20 offences under IPC however, besides alleged offences u/s 323/341/354/34 IPC, Ld. Counsel for complainant had himself conceded that nothing incriminating is brought by complainant on record qua remaining offences against the alleged accused persons. Further, it is not out of place to mention here that as per action taken report dated 10.09.2012 filed by SI Manoj Yadav in this case, an FIR No. 123/2011 was registered against complainant Hari Lal Yadav himself for attacking one D. D Sharma with a sharp object on the same date of incident i.e. 21.04.2011. The said fact had been concealed by the complainant in this complaint.
7. It is pertinent here to refer the relevant extract from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported as AIR 1998 (SC) 128, which is reproduced as under, ".........summoning of an accused in a criminal case is serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the CC No.155/01/13 Rita Devi vs. Janardan Rai & Ors. 3 of 4 complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused .........."
8. Keeping in view the contents of the complaint, evidence adduced by the complainant and aforesaid observations, this court is of the view that the complaint is vague with respect to majority of offences and majority of accused arraigned in the present complaint. With respect to remaining offences, owing to material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses, there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons. The present complaint is thus dismissed in terms of section 203 Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Akash Jain) MM06/PHC/ND/20.10.2015 CC No.155/01/13 Rita Devi vs. Janardan Rai & Ors. 4 of 4