Delhi District Court
Sh. Virender Singh vs The State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) on 28 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
CR No. 22/2020
ID No. 257/2018
1. Sh. Virender Singh
(Superintendent)
Directorate of Education GNCT of Delhi
S/o. Sh. Bachhraj Singh
Office At: Govt. Boys Sr. Sec.School
New Kondali, Delhi110096.
R/o. 2/42A, Rajender Nagar,
SecII, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
..............Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Manmohan Singh
R/o. B7/115,Bhalaswa,
Resettlement Colony,
Delhi110042.
.............Respondents
ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition u/s. 397 Cr.P.C is filed by revisionist against the impugned order dt. 30.10.2017 passed by Ms. CR No. 22/20 Page 1 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr. Mayuri Singh, Ld. MM, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in complaint case No. 576/12/13, titled as Manmohan Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi. Two applications one u/s. 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and another seeking amendment in the prayer clause of revision petition are also filed.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. M.M.Ansari & Sh.
Manish Gupta, Ld. Counsels for revisionist as well as by Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. Addl.PP for the State/respondent No.1 & respondent no.2 in person, who has also forwarded written submissions alongwith authorities through Email.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued that revisionist is a public servant and cognizance against revisionist without prior sanction is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further argued that Ld.Trial Court passed the impugned summoning order without application of mind as in Para 2 (L) & (M) of the complaint, respondent no.2/complainant has clearly alleged that Brijesh the ration shop owner picked up the stick and made an attempt to hit him. It is further submitted that there is no delay in filing the revision petition as revisionist came to know about summoning order on 27.07.2018 and petition is filed on 10.10.2018. Ld. Counsel for revisionist vehemently contended that at the time of preparing the revision petition the revisionist failed to mention summoning order dt. 19.01.2018 in prayer clause of the petition due to typographical error and for that he has filed an application for CR No. 22/20 Page 2 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr. amendment in the prayer clause of the revision petition. My attention is drawn in respect of authorities reported as Shiv Kumar Vs. Rajesh Gupta, Crl. Revision no. 3244/2013 Punjab & Haryana High Court; J.P.Singh & Anr. Vs. Vinay Kanodia (2011) 3 JCC 1792; Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K.Aiyappa & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 705; Ashok Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal); Dev Narain Dev Vs. State of U.P, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal); Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 2055 of 2007 & Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Delhi & Ors., 2012 (1) JCC 457.
4. Per contra, respondent no. 2/complainant argued that there is no provision in Cr.P.C for amendment of prayer clause of revision petition and although revisionist has challenged the order dt. 30.10.2017 passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. MM relating to cognizance but he is seeking amendment to challenge the summoning order dt. 19.01.2018 passed by Sh. Priyank Nayak, Ld. MM. It is further submitted that there is no argument on behalf of revisionist on delay and that version of complainant is consistent before SHO, in application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C as also in the statement given before Magistrate during presummoning evidence. It is submitted that as revisionist was Food Inspector at relevant point of time, as per settled law no sanction is required to prosecute the revisionist. My attention is drawn in respect of authorities reported as Balbir Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT, 125 (2005) DLT 542; Kulwant Singh Vs. Omi Kabadia & Ors.
CR No. 22/20 Page 3 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr. 2007 (4) JCC 2663; CBI Vs. Dharampal & Ors., 2005 (3) JCC 1629; Madan Mohan Kesar Vs. State 2010 (1) JCC 310; Bal Kishan Vs. State of Delhi, 2000 Crl.J 1217; Rajesh Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 Crl.J 1985; Tarun Vikram Vs. State, 2015 (1) JCC 314; Chandan Kumar Basu Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (13) SCC 70; Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh, 2013 (15) SCC 624; State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath Singh 2009 (6) SCC 372; Rajib Ranjan and Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar, 2015 (1) SCC 513; Prakash Singh Badal & Anr., 2007 (1) JCC 236; Vijender Singh VS. CBI 2018 (1) JCC 522.
5. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the grounds that impugned order is not sustainable and bad in law as the same has been passed without application of judicial mind; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that complainant/respondent no.1 with the collusion of NGO has filed the above said case in order to extort money from the revisionist; that Ld. Trial Court did not consider the actual fact that complainant/respondent no.2 has filed the complaint case on the basis of false, frivolous and concocted story; that Ld. Trial court wrongly summoned revisionist u/s. 202 Cr.P.C.
6. In brief facts are that respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of an FIR. It is claimed that complainant is an RTI campaigner having track record of mobilizing communities in Jahangir Puri & Bhalswa. It is case of the complainant that various irregularities regarding ration shop of M/s.
CR No. 22/20 Page 4 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr. Jagdish Prasad, 34/2, Harsh Vihar, Delhi (FPS No.7980, License No. 4541) had been brought to the notice of the complainant, for which he made complaint dt. 20.07.2012 to Additional Commissioner, NorthEast Food & Supply Department. On 19.09.2012, complainant alongwith one another social worker Smt. Pushpa attended a meeting with the residents of Harsh Vihar and after the meeting, they alongwith ration card holders reached at the said ration shop but the shop was found closed during working hours. The matter was reported by phone call to Mr. Anil Banka, Addl. Commissioner Food & Supply Department and ultimately respondent no.2 arrived at the said ration shop. It is further case of the complainant/respondent no.2 in the present petition that revisionist threatened the card holders and when complainant asked respondent no.2 i.e revisionist to control the goons, he and respondent no.11 had brought, respondent no.2/revisionist abused the complainant and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, respondent no.11 picked up a stick and ran towards the complainant and tried to hit him but Smt. Pushpa came in between, consequently the complainant was not hurt. Complainant called the police but he was falsely booked u/s. 96 & 97 of D.P Act. As despite police complaints no action was taken complaint case was filed.
7. Firstly, the core issue to decide is whether application for amendment in the prayer clause of the revision petition can be allowed. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued that inadvertently revisionist failed to mention that challenge in the revision petition is CR No. 22/20 Page 5 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr. summoning order dt. 19.01.2018 and due to typographical error impugned order is mentioned as 30.10.2017. In this regard perusal of record shows that revisionist in the revision petition has challenged order dt. 30.10.2017 passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. MM while by way of amendment he wants to challenge the order of summoning dt. 19.01.2018 passed by Sh. Priyank Nayak, Ld.MM. Perusal of Trial Court record further goes to show that there is no order dt. 30.10.2017 passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. MM and rather it is order dt. 30.10.2013 by which Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. MM dismissed the application of complainant u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C and took cognizance of offence. Revisionist not only in prayer clause but in title of the petition and ground 'A' of the petition has clearly mentioned that he is challenging the order dt. 30.10.2017 passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld.MM. The amendment sought by revisionist does not appear to be typographical error or simple infirmity. The amendment does not seem to be with an intent to correct inadvertent clerical error. Had it been that revisionist intended to amend typographical error in respect of date of order passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld.MM from 30.10.2017 to 30.10.2013, it could have been said to be a typographical error. The authorities as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for revisionist titled as Shiv Kumar Vs Rajesh Gupta (Supra) is not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case there was a clerical mistake regarding date of cheque only.
8. In view of the above, the amendment application as well as CR No. 22/20 Page 6 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr. revision petition fails. Accordingly, both stand dismissed, however, revisionist is at liberty to file fresh petition to challenge the summoning order in accordance with law. Trial Court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR
Announced in the open court MALHOTRA
KUMAR Location: Shahdara district,
through Video Conferencing MALHOTRA
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date: 2020.10.28 17:17:46
+0530
on 28.10.2020
(Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
ASJ04/Shahdara/KKD Courts
Delhi
CR No. 22/20 Page 7 of 7 Virender Singh Vs. The State & Anr.