Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 15 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Criminal Revision No.:40/2014
02402R0268742013
1. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. K. K. Sharma
2. Shruti Sharma
D/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Both R/o C-19, Ground & 2nd Floor,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. ......Revisionists/Petitioners
Vs.
State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) ......Respondent
Date of Institution: 26.08.2013
Order Reserved on: 18.03.2014
Date of Order: 15.04.2014
DD No.20A
Dated: 14.06.2013
U/s: 107/150
PS: Preet Vihar
Order:
1. Feeling aggrieved by summoning order dt. 17.06.2013 of Ld. Special Executive Magistrate, East District, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present revision petition seeking quashing of the said summoning order.
2. A Kalandara was filed by SHO PS Preet Vihar u/s 107/150 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") against the petitioners herein. Petitioners Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Shruti Sharma were described as second party whereas one Rakesh Sharma, Vijay Sharma, Anubhav Sharma, Anupam Sharma & Madhupam Sharma were the first party. Ld. Special Executive Magistrate ("SEM") after going through the Kalandara and the documents, and after recording the statement of the IO, came to the conclusion that there Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State Crl. Revision No. 40/14 Page No. 1 of 4 were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. He issued an order/notice u/s 111 Cr.P.C therein asking the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace until completion of the inquiry.
3. The allegations in the Kalandara were that the first party and the second party were indulging in verbal duel on 14.06.2013 on issue of some money transactions. The first party also alleged that the second party did not allow them to meet Smt. Janak Dulari Sharma who was mother and grandmother of the first party and was residing on the ground floor at C-19, Preet Vihar, Delhi. It was alleged that whenever the first party used to come to meet Smt. Janak Dulari Sharma, the second party indulges in quarrels & verbal duel. There was situation which might lead to breach of peace. In these circumstances, Kalandara was filed.
4. The petitioners challenged the summoning order on various grounds.
5. I have heard ld. counsel for the petitioners and Sh. Abdul Aleem, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State/respondent. I have perused the record.
6. Ld. counsel for the petitioners argued that instead of taking action against the first party who had forcibly and unauthorisedly entered into the house of the petitioners on 14.06.2013, the police officials have wrongly filed the Kalandara against the petitioners. He submitted that the first party had beaten, abused and used filthy language against the petitioners and their family members. He submits that a PCR call was made by petitioner no.2 to 100 number at about 9.48 am on 14.06.2013. He submits that there is a CD also of the whole episode which was recorded in CCTV Camera.
7. Ld. counsel for the petitioners argued that appropriate inquiry was not made by Ld. SEM before issuing the show cause notice. He informed that criminal force was used upon one Ms. Priyanka Sharma (elder daughter of petitioner no.1), Ms. Namata Sharma (wife of petitioner no.1). He also alleged that modesty of petitioner no.2 was also outraged. The allegations are also to Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State Crl. Revision No. 40/14 Page No. 2 of 4 the extent that Ms. Anupam Sharma of the first party chocked petitioner no.2 and pushed her against wall. Still no action was taken against the first party. He also criticised the role of the police officials. He submitted that Ld. SEM did not take into consideration the same. Ld. counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments titled as Rashid Hussain vs. State & Ors. decided on 5th May, 2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ganesh Kumar Sharma vs. State & Ors. decided on 5th April, 2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Asha Pant vs. State & Ors. decided on 17 th March, 2008 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and prayed that the summoning order be quashed.
8. Per contra, Ld. Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. He submitted that Ld. SEM conducted appropriate inquiry as is reflected from the LCR itself. He submitted that the petitioners should raise all the contentions during the inquiry before Ld. SEM.
9. I have considered these submissions.
10. It is to be noticed that merely show cause notice was issued by Ld. SEM.
Inquiry was yet to be completed. All the contentions which have been raised by the petitioners are issues of facts which can only be decided after the parties lead their evidence. As far as the procedure is concerned, Ld. SEM has conducted appropriate inquiry before issuance of notice u/s 111 Cr.P.C. There is no procedural error in passing this summoning order. The judgments cited by Ld. counsel for the petitioners do not help the petitioners.
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the proceedings should be quashed as already period of six months has lapsed. This contention has no merits. Lower Court Record reveals that it is the petitioners who have been taking adjournments before Ld. SEM. In fact, petitioner no.2 Shruti Sharma has been seeking exemptions right from the beginning till 08.10.2013. Thus the petitioners are themselves responsible for delaying the said proceedings. More over, Lower Court Record was called by Ld. Predecessor. This consumption of time cannot be made ground for closing inquiry before Ld. SEM.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State Crl. Revision No. 40/14 Page No. 3 of 4
12. In view of the above, it is held that there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
13. A copy of this order be placed in the LCR and it be sent back immediately to Ld. SEM. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 15.04.2014.
(Sanjay Bansal) ASJ-03/East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State Crl. Revision No. 40/14 Page No. 4 of 4