Delhi District Court
Rakesh Nagpal vs (1) State on 21 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 03/12
RAKESH NAGPAL
s/o Sh. Sita Ram Nagpal
r/o 3017A, Sant Nagar,
Rani Bagh, Delhi ..................Revisionist
Versus
(1) State
(2) Sh. Deshraj Adhlakha
(3) Smt. Suman Dang
w/o Sh. Mahender Singh
(4) Sh. Rohit Adhlakha @ Bunty
(5) Ms. Monika Nagpal @ Jagriti
d/o late Sh. Mahinder Kumar Dang
all residents of village Basai Dhankot,
Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana ..................Respondents
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this revision petition u/s 397 Crl. R. No. 03/12; Rakesh Nagpal Vs. State & ors. Page 1 of 6 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29102011 passed by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. MM in CC no. 1226/1/2007 titled Sh. Rakesh Nagpal Vs. Sh. Deshraj Adhlakha & Ors.
2. TCR has already been summoned. I have heard Ld. counsel for the revisionist, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for respondents and have perused the entire record.
3. The petitioner/ revisionist has taken the grounds among others that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the respondents have committed the other offences punishable under the law. The Ld. MM did not consider the testimonies of the witnesses recorded before the court with the right perspective and passed the impugned order without any justification or sound reasoning. Even Sh. V. K. Goel, Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi passed the directions that the Ld. Trial Court should see the effect of the compromise on the role of each of the respondents and was required to pass the summoning order accordingly and as such, the entire approach of the Ld. MM, Delhi is erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. The Ld. MM also Crl. R. No. 03/12; Rakesh Nagpal Vs. State & ors. Page 2 of 6 erred in not taking into account the transcript of the CDs which clearly showed when there was due evidence led by the petitioner at preliminary stage which makes out a prima facie case against the respondents of offence u/s 506/34 IPC and other provisions of IPC. The Ld. APP grossly erred in not appreciating that the threats as spelled out in the transcripts and the CDs which are of such a nature so as to cause alarm to the petitioner/ revisionist. The Ld. MM even did not apply his judicial mind either to the facts of the case nor bothered to go through the contents of the testimonies of the witnesses recorded before him.
4. The Ld. counsel for the revisionist, during arguments, referred the impugned order dated 29102012 passed by the Ld. MM that it is passed without any reasons and applying the mind by the Ld. MM. Further, list of dates and events filed before the Ld. Trial Court also referred and stated that as per the list of dates and events available in the Trial Court record, there are specific allegations against the respondents. At this stage, the Ld. Trial Court should have seen the prima facie case in favour of the complainant and against the respondents which the Ld. Trial Court Crl. R. No. 03/12; Rakesh Nagpal Vs. State & ors. Page 3 of 6 failed to do so.
5. Whereas, the Ld. counsel for the respondents argued that the present revision petition is abuse of process of law. The conduct of the revisionist can be seen from the Trial Court record as to how again and again, the revisionist sought the adjournment on one ground or the other. The Ld. counsel for the respondents also referred the detailed order dated 02082010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court therein the Ld. Trial Court considered that allegation against the respondent are not specific allegation and the allegation made by the complainant against his wife and family members are general allegations. Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. MM, Rohini Court, Delhi in the said order dated 02082010, observed that it appeared that it is just a counter blast of the complaint made by the wife of the complainant, this complaint is filed by the complainant against his wife and found that no prima facie case is made out against the wife of complainant or against any of the respondents. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent further argued that though the list of witnesses was filed by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court but no witness i.e. Nodal Crl. R. No. 03/12; Rakesh Nagpal Vs. State & ors. Page 4 of 6 Officer regarding the call details has been mentioned in the list of witnesses. Even otherwise, this fact has also not been mentioned in the complaint before the Ld. Trial Court.
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29102011 passed by the Ld. Trial Court reveals that complainant was present with the counsel. The case was heard. After perusal of the file, submissions made by the counsel for the complainant, evidence led during presummoning and on the basis of material available on record, the Ld. MM was of the considered view that prima facie case u/s 323 IPC was made out against the accused and therefore the accused was directed to be summoned on filing of PF/RC. Meaning thereby, the Ld. MM not only considered the facts and circumstances of the case but also perused the pre summoning evidence as well as the materials on record at the time of passing the impugned order dated 29102011. I have also gone through the list of dates and events, records as well as the presummoning evidence led before the Ld. Trial Court and found that there is not a strong suspicion which may lead the court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the respondents Crl. R. No. 03/12; Rakesh Nagpal Vs. State & ors. Page 5 of 6 have committed an offence for attracting the other provisions for which the case is to be made out against the respondents. 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 21022013 Crl. R. No. 03/12; Rakesh Nagpal Vs. State & ors. Page 6 of 6