Delhi District Court
Mr. Ramesh Bidhuri vs The State on 3 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number: 24/2016
Unique ID No. 02406R0128182016
Mr. Ramesh Bidhuri,
Son of Sh. Ramrikh,
R/o 179, Sunpat House,
Tuglaqabad,
New Delhi-110044. ...........................Revisionist
versus
The State ...........................Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 01.04.2016
Date of Allocation : 02.04.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 05.04.2016
Date of Judgment : 03.06.2016
Particulars related to impugned order
FIR No. : 334/2010
PS : Sangam Vihar
Date of impugned order : 13.10.2015
Name of learned Trial Court : Sh. Navjeet Budhiraja,
MM-04, South, Saket.
Memo of Appearance
Sh. Subhash Tanwar, counsel for Revisionist.
Sh. R.S. Negi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent.
Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
1 The present is a judicial verdict on the revision petition, filed u/s 397 Cr.P.C., against the impugned order, dated 13.10.2015 passed by learned trial court.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Sameen Bhai, made a PCR call and a DD entry No. 38 A, dated 01.10.2010, was registered with PS Sangam Vihar. Police reached the alleged spot of incident and police came to know that the complainant and his family members were taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi by PCR Van. Statement of complainant was recorded and FIR no. 334/2010 was registered with PS Sangam Vihar. It is alleged that on 01.10.2010, at about 10.00 PM, one Bhola Gupta visited the grocery shop situated opposite to the house of complainant and started misbehaving with complainant and upon resistance by complainant, Bhola Gupta left the place. It is further alleged that after sometime, Bhola Gupta came back with Ved Prakash, Achhe Lal and Rajesh and some other unknown persons, who could be identified by complainant. They entered the house of complainant by breaking the shutter and assaulted the complainant, his wife, daughter and son. They also damaged the household goods and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and two mobile phones of Reliance and Nokia were taken away.
3 After registration of FIR, matter was investigated and, during the investigation, MLCs of alleged injured persons were collected. IO recorded statements of complainant, his wife, daughter and two independent witnesses. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court against four accused persons, namely, Bhola Gupta. Ved Prakash, Achhe Lal and Rajesh.
Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 2 of 74 During the trial, vide order, dated 24.02.2012, accused Achhey Lal was declared proclaimed offender.
5 Vide order, dated 18.09.2013, charge was framed against accused Ved Prakash, Rajesh and Bhola Gupta. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6 Prosecution was directed by the learned trial court to adduce evidence and prosecution examined PW1, Sh. Sameen Bhai, the complainant.
7 PW1, Sameen Bhai, had deposed that, on 01.10.2010, at about 10 PM, they were going to sleep. They heard the sound of shutter breaking of their office which is in his home. About 25-30 persons broke open the shutter and entered into the house. They were carrying various weapons such as lathi and saria etc. They started to break the house property and had beaten his wife Amna, his daughters Ruksar, Shine and sons Saied, Sajid @ Sadam Hussain. They took with them Rs.10,000/- from the pocket of complainant and Rs. 50,000/- from their almirah. They also took the jewelery of his elder daughter Ruksar. Complainant had deposed that he was injured on his right hand, back and head and due to injury, he became unconscious and got his consciousness in Trauma Centre, AIIMS. PW1 further deposed that all the accused persons tried to rape his wife. He had identified all the three accused persons, during his examination. PW1 had further deposed that the other offenders have not been made the accused, in the present case, who are, namely, Ramesh Biduri, Raju @ pani mafia, Subhash Akela, Surender Singh, Nandan Prasad, Sunil, Jaggi, Virpal, Rajesh Gupta. He could identify these accused persons also.
Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 3 of 78 After the statement of PW1, learned PP for state had moved an application u/s 319 Cr. PC, before the learned trial court, for summoning of accused persons, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri, Raju @ Pani Mafia, Subhash @ Akela, Surender Singh, Nandan Prasad, Sunil, Jaggi, Veer Pal and Rajesh Gupta.
9 Vide order, dated 13.10.2015, learned trial court had ordered for summoning of accused persons, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri, Raju @ Pani Mafia, Subhash @ Akela, Surender Singh, Nandan Prasad, Sunil, Jaggi, Veer Pal and Rajesh Gupta.
10 I have heard the arguments from both the sides and gone through the material available on record file.
11 Learned counsel for revisionist has contended that the prosecution of revisionist is an abuse of process of law and testimony of complainant is politically motivated. It has further been contended that the impugned order is erroneous as the same has been passed mechanically. It has been contended on behalf of revisionist that there is complete contradiction between the two sets of statements made by complainant. It has further been argued on behalf of the revisionist that the learned trial court has committed an error and has failed to appreciate that no evidence is available on record except the self-contradictory statement of the complainant.
12 On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Additional PP for the State that the impugned order, dated 13.10.2015, has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court. It has further been contended that learned Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 4 of 7 Trial Court had not committed any error by summoning the accused persons. It has been argued that the present revision petition be dismissed.
13 Section 319 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides as under:-
"Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed."
14 The Supreme Court, in Suman Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 518, has observed as under:-
"The case can be proceeded under this section, if evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of an offence, the court is, prima facie, satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. So the process issued under this section cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though named in the complaint, the police did not charge-sheeted."
15 Reference can also be made to decision of Bhola Rai Vs. State of Bithar, (1997) 3 Crimes 48 (Pat) wherein the court has observed that:-
"In order to apply section 319 it is essential that the need to proceed against the person other than the accused, appearing to be guilty of offence, arises only on evidence recorded in the course of any inquiry or trial."Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 5 of 7
16 It is clear from the above quoted judgments that the court has to, prima facie, satisfy itself that a person, who is to be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C., has committed the offence along with other accused persons. If, there is no, prima facie, material before the court to summon the accused, the court should not proceed against such person u/s 319 Cr.P.C.
17 In the present matter, PW1, Sameen Bhai, has not assigned any specific role to alleged accused, Ramesh Bidhuri, in his deposition, as PW1, before the court, on 11.08.2014. He has simply mentioned his name in his examination-in-chief. During the cross-examination of this witness, it has transpired that this witness had contested the election for the post of MLA in 2003 from Tughlakabad Constituency. The alleged accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri, had won the election for the post of MLA. Thus, the name of the alleged accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri, has been introduced by the complainant, in his statement, dated 11.08.2014, due to political rivalary. However, no specific role has been assigned to alleged accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri. Thus, there was, prima facie, no material on the record file to summon the accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri u/s 319 Cr.P.C. It may be mentioned that complainant, Sameen Bhai, had contested the election against the alleged accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri, for the post of MLA. Thus, it is clear from the record file that Ramesh Bidhuri was known to the complainant. However, Ramesh Bidhuri had not been named in the FIR. It castes a doubt regarding the involvement of alleged accused, Ramesh Bidhuri, in the alleged offence. In fact, the alleged accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri, has been tried to be robed in the present case due to political rivalary. There is no material on the record file to implicate the alleged accused, namely, Ramesh Bidhuri. No specific role has been assigned by the complainant, to the accused, Ramesh Bidhuri, in his examination-in-chief.
Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 6 of 7There is nothing on the record file to show that accused, Ramesh Bidhuri, had committed an offence u/s 323/458/427 r/w 34 IPC. Since, no specific role has been assigned to the accused, Ramesh Bidhuri, during the examination-in- chief of complainant, I am of the considered view that the learned trial court was not justified in summoning the accused, Ramesh Bidhuri, u/s 319 Cr.P.C., 1973.
18 In view of these facts, the order passed by the learned trial court is set aside to the extent as hereinbefore stated.
19 However, nothing expressed hereinabove shall affect the trial of accused persons who have already been charged u/s 323, 458, 427 IPC r/w section 34 IPC on 18.09.2013 by the learned trial court.
20 In view of above discussions, the revision petition is hereby allowed.
21 Revision petition stands disposed of.
22 A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with the trial court record.
23 File related to revision petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (RAMESH KUMAR)
on this 3rd day of June 2016 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi
Ramesh Bidhuri Vs State CR No. 24/2016 Page 7 of 7