Delhi District Court
(3) Smt. Amarjit Kaur vs Brij Mohan Mehta on 9 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 46/11
(1) Sukhdev Singh
(2) Beant Singh
both sons of Sh. Dalip Singh
(3) Smt. Amarjit Kaur
w/o Sh. Dalip Singh,
all residents of B411,
Majlis Park, Gali no. 4,
Azadpur, Delhi33 ..................Revisionists
Versus
Brij Mohan Mehta
s/o late Sh. Paras Ram Mehta, ..................Respondent
J U D G E M E N T
1. The revisionists have filed this revision petition u/s 397 Cr. P. C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 03032011 passed by Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. MMIV, Rohini Courts, Delhi in the case titled Brij Mohan Mehta Vs. Dalip Singh Etc. Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 1 of 7
2. TCR has already been summoned. I have heard counsel for the Revisionists and the respondent and have perused the entire record.
3. The revisionists in their revision have raised the ground among others that the impugned order dated 03032011 passed by the Ld. MM is not supported by corroborated offence i.e. sword was not seized by the police even though the police team was present there and visited the site at the time of incident and the allegations of the complainant are not substantiated as there is no corresponding injury nor the seizure of weapon of offence which could have been seized by the police. Out of the summoned witnesses, the doctor conducting the MLC is the near relative of respondent. Summoning order is passed for the section which are not attracted on the basis of allegations in evidence and the same are not supported by any prima facie evidence and in facts and circumstances of the case at the best, the petitioners could have been summoned for section 323 IPC. The complainant had no business to go to the suit property as he had not gone there as per order of the Ld. MM or in an execution petition and as alleged, Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 2 of 7 there was no conversation for compromise since the accused Sukhdev Singh, petitioner no. 1 herein, is not residing there and he was called telephonically and accused Beant Singh was also at his work place. The present complaint case is filed by the complainant who was himself at fault and had gone to take possession of property illegally with the help of police and over and above this, he has filed the present false case just to pressurize the petitioners in a pending civil suit of property in dispute and wants them to vacate the property under pressure of this case.
4. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has argued that civil proceedings are pending between the parties. There is no evidence that there was an attack with the kirpan. No recovery made out. No such incident had taken place. False and fabricated case filed by the complainant to pressurize the revisionists to vacate the property in question. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionists in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgement reported as Praveen Kumar Garg Vs. State of UP 2011 (6) RCR (Crl.) 1271 (Allahabad), therein the revision was filed u/s Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 3 of 7 397 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order of trial court u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. It was held that trial court did not record its satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted, therefore, impugned order was quashed. Revision was allowed. The Ld. Counsel for revisionists also relied upon judgement reported as Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhana & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3363.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent is in possession of the suit property since 1963. Decree of the suit property was passed in favour of the respondent in the year 1989. As per DD no. 9A dated 23111992, Sukhdev Singh, revisionist no. 1, stated that he was residing at B410 with his family. Whereas the revisionist no. 1 in para no. 4 of the revision petition has stated that on the date of alleged incident, he was residing in B2/101A, Safdurjung Enclave, N. Delhi. Medical examination was also conducted and MLC was also prepared. After leading the evidence, the charge was framed by the Ld. Trial Court, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Ld. MM. In support of his Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 4 of 7 arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgement reported as State of Maharastra etc. etc., Appellants Vs. Somnath Thapa, etc. etc., respondents 1996 Crl. L. J. 2448, it was held that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, framed charge against him for committing that offence. In Banshi Dhar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 (2) Crimes 263 it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, trial court is not required to marshal material on record but only has to prima facie consider prima facie case. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent in support of his argument has further relied upon the judgement reported as Smt. Saraswati & others Vs. Shiv Shankar & others 2007 (3) JCC 2245 and Shiv Narain & others, applicants Vs. State of UP & another, opposite parties 2000 Crl. L. J. 3346. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the judgement relied upon by the revisionist at the time of arguments on charge i.e. Rajdeo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar 1998 AIR (SC) 3281 pertains to the FIR matter, whereas the present case is the complaint case.
6. I have also perused the order on charge dated Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 5 of 7 03032011 of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate therein the Ld. MM has discussed the facts of the case as well as the precharge evidence and found that there is no reason to discharge the accused persons and held that there are ground for presuming that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 323/342/506/34 IPC.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the arguments led by the counsel for the parties and the judgements relied upon by them, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has to consider the materials and the evidence, if any, placed before it and if it is found by the Trial Court that the prima facie case is made out against the accused, charge can be framed against the accused as also held in the aforesaid judgements relied upon by the counsel for the respondent. In the present case, the Trial Court has also found the grounds that prima facie the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 323/342/506/34 IPC. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03032011 passed by the Ld. MM. The above said judgements relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists are Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 6 of 7 not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the revision petition 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 09022012 Crl. R. No. 46/11; Sukhdev Singh Vs. Brij Mohan Mehta Page 7 of 7