Delhi District Court
Sangeeta Devi vs State on 17 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST) , DELHI.
Criminal Rev. No. 121/17
1. Sangeeta Devi
W/o Late Sh. Pramod Kumar Jaiswal
2. Sh. Rajan Jaiswal
S/o Late Sh. Pramod Kumar Jaiswal
Both R/o
R-309, Jawalapuri
J. J. Colony, Camp no. 5
Sunder Vihar
Delhi - 110087 Revisionists
Versus
1. State
2. Sh. Harinder Jaiswal
At present absconding
3. Sh. Jagdish Bargujjar of Pooja Properties
Having his office
At R-75, Jawalapuri
J. J. Colony, Camp no. 5
Sunder Vihar
Delhi - 110087
4. Sh. Dharmender of Balaji Associates
Having office at
94, Dharam Colony
Main Rohtak Road
Nangloi
Delhi - 110041
5. Sh. Dharambir @ Sh. Dharamveer
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 1 of 8
R/o R-114, Jawalapuri
J. J. Colony, Camp no. 5
Sunder Vihar
Delhi - 110087
6. Sh. Mohd. Adil of Bankey Bihari Estate
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
R/o H. No. 300, Gali no. 6
Ratan Vihar, Kirari
Suleman Nagar
Delhi - 110086
7. Sh. O. P. Sharma
Advocate and Notary Public
Shop no. 1, SDM Office compound
Nangloi
Delhi
8. Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
S/o Sh. Parbhati Lal
R/o R-7, Jawala Puri
Camp No. 5, Sunder Vihar
Delhi
9. Sh. H. L. Gandhi
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o B-111, Hari Enclave
Phase-II, Kirari Suleman Nagar
Delhi - 110086 Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.03.2017
Date of Assignment to this court : 25.03.2017
Date of Arguments : 17.01.2019
Date of Judgment/orders : 17.01.2019
JUDGMENT:
1. The present revision has been preferred U/S 397/399 Cr.P.C against the order dated 16.02.2017 (hereinafter called the 'impugned order) as passed by Ld. MM-04/THC/Delhi, Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 2 of 8 (hereinafter called the Ld. Trial Court). Vide impugned order the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that revisionist no. 1 had filed a complaint case against the respondent no. 2 to 9 alleging therein that they (respondents) in connivance with each other have got her signature on certain papers regarding transferring of property no. R-309, Jawalapuri, Camp no. 5, Sunder Vihar, Delhi - 110087 (hereinafter called the said property). It is alleged in the complaint that respondent no. 2 Harinder Jaiswal has started to reside with the revisionist no. 1 in her house forcibly after the death of her husband. It is also alleged in the complaint that respondent no. 2 has made sexual relations with revisionist no. 1 on the pretext of marriage. It is also stated in the complaint that respondent no. 2 has removed the original title documents of the said property with a view to defraud, cheat, manipulate illegal documents.
3. The revisionist has also moved an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. It was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. Thereafter revisionists were given permission to lead evidence to show prima facie substantiate allegations as made in the complaint. The revisionists have examined themselves as CW1 and CW2 and one independent witness as CW3. After hearing the arguments on summoning, the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the complaint of the revisionists vide impugned order. Hence they have filed the present revision petition.
Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 3 of 84. The revisionist no. 1 has alleged in the revision petition that the Ld. Trial Court has not considered the fact that respondent no. 2 have established sexual relations with the revisionist no. 1 after promising her the marriage. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has also ignored a fact that respondent no. 2 has removed the title documents of the said property without permission of revisionist no. 1, which disclosed a commission of cognizable offence. It is submitted that the conspiracy between the respondents no. 2 to 9 came to the notice of the revisionist when one of the respondent namely H. L. Gandhi had issued a legal notice and filed a suit stating therein that he has purchased the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 21 Lacs.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for revisionists as well as Addl. APP for State, Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 3 & 7 and respondent no. 9 and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made by the them. None has appeared on behalf of other respondents for arguments despite service hence I am proceeding to adjudicate the revision petition on merit. I also considered the record.
6. Before further adverting to the facts of the case I would like to mention here certain settled preposition of law which has to be kept in mind by the Magistrate while initiating criminal process in those cases which are having facts resemblance to the commission of offence. In case titled as Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 4 of 8 Indian Oil Corporation Vs NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made cautious the Magistrate regarding the tendency being increased to give colour of civil dispute into a criminal case.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sagir Suri Vs. State of U. P. (2000) 2 Sec 636 has observed that criminal proceedings are not short cut of other remedies available in law which is essentially of a civil nature. Similar preposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. State Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The courts are advised to be cautious while issuing criminal process.
8. So in the light of settled preposition of law let us examine the case of the revisionists.
9. So far as the allegations of the revisionist no. 1 about leveling allegations of rape against the proposed accused Harinder Jaiswal is concerned. The revisionist no. 1 has leveled the general allegations in her complaint and has deposed on the same lines while she was examined as pre summoning witness. There is no specific day, date or month or year mentioned either in the complaint or deposed in the examination before Court regarding establishing a sexual relations by Harinder Jaiswal. The allegations seems bald. On Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 5 of 8 perusal of impugned order of Ld. Trial Court. It reveals that the Ld. Trial Court has dealt with this issue specifically and has also considered a fact that on the first day when the revisionist no. 1 was examined in the Court she has not leveled any such allegations against Harinder Jaiswal when she was examined in pre-lunch session on 25.01.2016 but subsequently adjournment has been taken in the after lunch session by making request to the Court. On next date, when she was examined in the Court, she has made such allegation of having sexual relations by Harinder Jaiswal with her.
10. However, on perusal of complaint itself as well as testimony of revisionist no. 1, for the sake of arguments, if it is admitted to be correct that the person namely Harinder Jaiswal was having sexual relations with the revisionist no. 1, it seems that same were not forcible rather consensual. So the allegations of the revisionist no. 1 regarding having sexual relations with her by proposed accused Harinder Jaiswal is prima facie not established on record, as being made on the pretext of marriage. Ld. Trial Court has rightly dealt with this issue in the impugned order.
11. So far as the allegation of taking away original documents of the said property is concerned. The revisionist firstly has to brought on record whether said property belong to the husband of revisionist no. 1 and father of revisionist no. 2 but virtue of the documents which are stolen by respondent no. 2. There is no description of said documents such as Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 6 of 8 whether it were registered documents or GPA, Will and agreement to sell. The mode by which the said property came in the name of husband of revisionist no. 1 and father of revisionist no. 2. Whether the same was purchased from its erstwhile owner. The existence of the stolen documents is not brought on record.
12. The second fact whether the respondents no. 2 to 9 have got converted those papers for their benefit is concerned. The revisionists have not placed on record any such documents which has been got executed by the respondents. So this fact has also not come on record that documents were got prepared by the respondents of the said property. Even otherwise for the sake of arguments, if it is admitted to be correct that respondent no. 9 Sh. H. L. Gandhi had filed a case against the revisionist no. 1 claiming rights in the said property in that situation that said H. L. Gandhi has to establish that right through that suit and documents, if any, being allegedly got executed. In that circumstances the dispute between the revisionists and respondents may become essentially Civil in nature.
13. From the perusal of file it also reveals that revisionist no. 2 has leveled robbery allegations in the para no. 8 of the main complaint but he has not deposed so in his examination being recorded before the Court which also shows that prima facie allegations are wrong.
Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 7 of 814. I would also like to mention here a fact that revisionist no. 2 had filed a suit against the revisionist no. 1 in a Civil Court and got injunction decree on compromise basis by compromising that revisionist no. 1 will not dispossess the revisionist no. 2 from the said property and she will not sell out that property. I am not commenting upon this with which purpose this suit was filed because it may affect rights of other party if other party claims his right in the Court.
15. So, in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence brought on record I am of the view that Ld. Trial Court has not committed any infirmity or illegality in the impugned oder.
16. So, In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed.
17. Let a copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court with TCR.
18. Revision records be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed byJAGDISH JAGDISH KUMAR ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Date: 2019.01.22 15:07:44 +0530 COURT ON THIS 17.01.2019 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI Cr. Rev. No.121/17 Sangeeta Devi Vs State & Anr. Page 8 of 8