Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ashok Kasana vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 9 January, 2014

               IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
       SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Crl. Revision No. 135/13
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0351182013

In the matter of :-

Ashok Kasana                                              . . . Revisionist
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad
R/o Village : Rajpur
P.O Farukh Nagar
Distt : Ghaziabad, U.P

                                 VERSUS

State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)                              . . . Respondent
Through Ld. Public Prosecutor


Date of Institution          : 28/10/13
Date of reserving order      : 04/01/14
Date of pronouncement        : 09/01/14


                                  ORDER

This order shall dispose of a Criminal Revision Petition U/s 397/399/401 of Cr.P.C preferred by the revisionist Ashok Kasana against the order dated 31/08/13 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court in case FIR No. 206/10, PS Seemapuri whereby revisionist has been summoned to face trial U/s 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and U/s 353/354/509 IPC.

2. Trial court record has been summoned and perused.

3. In the present revision complainant has not been made a Crl. Rev. No. 135/13 Page 1 of 4 party but she has appeared alongwith Counsel on her own. I have heard the submissions from both sides and gone through the record.

4. On behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that the impugned order is wrong, illegal, improper, unjustified, against the basic provision of law as well as against the established law laid down by the Hon'ble Higher Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that the complainant did not disclose the caste remarks and name of the revisionist at the time of calling the police at 100 number. She has also not disclosed the caste remarks and name of the revisionist to the Dy. Commissioner (Education), Shahdara North Zone; that the Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that the public witnesses have not stated anything regarding the role of the revisionist; that the husband of the complainant namely Harvir Singh Harnotia was Ex-counseller of the area and had lodged various false cases of SC/ST Act against several innocent persons out of them one is FIR No. 324/1998, U/s 7 PCR Act, PS Tuglak Road, New Delhi against Ch. Ajeet Singh on 10/11/1998; that on 03/09/05, the husband of the complainant made a written complaint to the then Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi regarding lodging of FIR against an Advocate under the provisions of SC/ST Act; that another case was got registered by the husband of the complainant against Dalip Singh and others vide FIR No. 490/2004, PS Seemapuri, U/s 3 SC/ST Act and U/s 341/506/34 IPC; that the complainant has also filed a complaint case against SHO, PS Seemapuri, DCP/NE District, Delhi, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi which was dismissed; that the complainant and her family members are habitual in lodging the false and frivolous cases against the innocent persons; that the Ld. Trial court has passed the order in a mechanical and casual manner and has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pepsi Foods Ltd v Crl. Rev. No. 135/13 Page 2 of 4 Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 Crl. L.J 1; that the complainant has also filed a false complaint against the revisionist in his department and after inquiry nothing was found against the revisionist; that Ld. Trial court has passed the impugned order merely on conjectures and surmises; that the revisionist is a Teacher by profession. He has clean antecedents. No case is pending against him or his family members in any court of law. The revisionist is a General Secretary of Teachers' Union, MCD and has been falsely implicated by the complainant in order to extort money. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5. Ld. Counsel for respondent as well as Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State have submitted that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. The contention that the complainant or her relatives had filed any false case(s) against anyone and the documents relating thereto are not required to be seen at this stage. The investigating officer had not properly investigated the complaint. The FIR was not registered even by the SHO and that is why the complainant was constrained to file a criminal complaint in the court and directions for registration of case was issued by Ld. MM. The charge-sheet (the cancellation report) has been filed ignoring the contents of the complaint made by the complainant. The complainant had filed protest petition and Ld. Trial court has taken the cognizance relying on authority reported as Dy. Chief Controller of Import and Export v Roshan Lal Aggarwal (2003) 4 SCC 139, wherein it has been held that at the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate is not required to record reason. From the contents of the complaint, prima facie commission of offence U/s 3 SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and U/s 353/354/506 IPC are made out and therefore the Ld. Trial court has issued the summons against the revisionist.

6. A perusal of the complaint dated 09/07/10 made by the complainant Smt. Kamlesh Kumari clearly shows that she has made allegations against the revisionist of using the words addressing her by her caste (made castist remarks). She has also made the allegation of physical assault and using filthy abuse against her. It is well settled that as per Sec. 134 of the Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses has been fixed and even if the testimony of one trustworthy witness is on record which inspires confidence of the court and the same has to be accepted and acted upon, and in such a situation no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact of non-examination of other witnesses, an accused can be held guilty even on the sole testimony of one witness. It cannot be said that the Ld. MM has not applied its judicial mind before passing the impugned order of summoning against the revisionist. In authority reported as Gangadhar Janardan Matre v State of Maharashtra (2004)7 SCC 768, it was held that upon receipt of a police report U/s 173(2) Cr.PC, a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence U/s 190(1)(b) Cr.PC, even if the police report is to the effect that no case was made out against the accused. The contentions raised on behalf of revisionist are not required to be considered at this stage.

7. In my considered view there appears no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is therefore dismissed. Copy of order alongwith trial court record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court today i.e 9th January 2014 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdra District Karkardooma Court, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 135/13 Page 4 of 4