Delhi District Court
Dhiren Gupta vs (1) The State on 18 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 17/13
Dhiren Gupta
s/o late Sh. Sukhi Chand
r/o 1486E, Rani Bagh, Delhi34 ..................Revisionist
Versus
(1) The State
(2) Kailash Khurana
s/o Sh. Tek Chand
r/o 1847, Multani Mohalla,
Rani Bagh, Delhi34
(3) Anil Mehan
s/o Sh. Munni Lal Mehan
r/o 1486D, Rani Bagh, Delhi34
(4) Munni Lal Mehan
r/o 1486D, Rani Bagh, Delhi34
(5) Manoj Mathur
r/o 4576, Sant Nagar,
Rani Bagh, Delhi34 ..................Respondents
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this revision petition u/s Crl. R. No. 17/13; Dhiren Gupta Vs. State & ors. Page 1 of 5 397/399 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 11012013 passed by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. MM, Delhi in the case bearing FIR no. 460/2008 u/s 325/147/148/149/452/34 IPC, PS Saraswati Vihar whereby the Ld. MM dismissed the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist and duly forwarded by Ld. APP for State.
2. TCR has already been summoned. The facts have already been discussed in the impugned order dated 11012013 by the Ld. MM, therefore, the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. However, the petitioner/ revisionist has taken the grounds among others that order of Ld. MM is not legal but arbitrary. The Ld. MM has made cryptic order without assigning any proper reasons. The petitioner in his examination in chief and his presummoning evidence in CC case no. 101/1/9 clubbed with present FIR has specifically attributed the roles of Manoj, Anil, Mehan, Munni Lal Mehan and Kailash Khurana as assailants in the incident dated 13072008 along with others. The said occurrence took place in the presence of HC Rajender and local police was in league with accused persons and complainant received grievous injury. HC Rajender forbid complainant and his Crl. R. No. 17/13; Dhiren Gupta Vs. State & ors. Page 2 of 5 wife to give full details of occurrence and names of all assailants and the complaint was misplaced by the police in order to save the accused persons. Ld. MM has gone wrong in holding that name of Manoj, Anil Mehan, Munni Lal Mehan and Kailash Khurana were not mentioned in the first report Ex. PW1/A and on complaint to DCP Ex. CW1/B. The Ld. MM has overlooked the statement of complainant and his wife which were given in the presummoning evidence in complaint case. Ld. MM has overlooked the evidence of complainant Ex. CW1/B dated 18072008 and complaint Ex. CW1/C dated 29072008 where the names of accused Kailash Khurana and others were mentioned. Ld. MM overlooked the order dated 04052011 in which the counsel for complainant specifically mentioned that in the complaint case some more accused have been made with more Penal sections but Ld. MM ordered to club the complaint case with State case by mentioning that course available to complainant was to move application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The Ld. MM did not summon the respondents as accused in the present case because the facts of the complaint case became part of the State case. The Ld. MM placed reliance on the applications dated 02092008 and 23032009 which were Crl. R. No. 17/13; Dhiren Gupta Vs. State & ors. Page 3 of 5 moved for filing the status report of present case by stating that names of respondents do not find mention in those applications. The complainant attended the court seeking status report of investigation of this case for about 20 dates but could not get proper status report and then ultimately withdrew his application. Due to noncooperation, partial and illegal investigation by the local police, the complainant had to file criminal complaint case in the month of March 2009 against all the accused persons including the five accused persons who were made accused by the police in the State case.
3. I have heard Ld. counsel for the revisionist and Ld. APP for the State/ respondent and have perused the materials on record.
4. As per provisions u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and in view of the judgement reported in the case of Sarabjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., a person should be summoned only when court finds that the evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. In the present case, I have carefully perused the records and found that no allegations have been made in the complaint against Crl. R. No. 17/13; Dhiren Gupta Vs. State & ors. Page 4 of 5 the proposed accused persons which may reasonably lead to conviction of the persons as sought to be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. TCR along with copy of this order be sent back and thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 18032013 Crl. R. No. 17/13; Dhiren Gupta Vs. State & ors. Page 5 of 5