Delhi District Court
R. No. 1413/16 vs . on 11 October, 2018
In the court of Sh. Prayank Nayak, MM02 (SHD), Delhi.
R. No. 1413/16
PS: Farsh Bazar
11.10.2018
Ashish Singh
vs.
Pushpa Singh & Ors.
Present: Complainant in person with LAC Ms. Mamta.
Inquiry report received.
Put up for orders today itself at 4.00 PM.
(Prayank Nayak)
MM02(KKD/SHD)/Delhi
11.10.2018
At 4.00 PM
Present: Complainant in person.
1.Vide this complaint, complainant seeks summoning of accused Pushpa Rani, Brij Narain, Ranjan and Indal.
2. Two witnesses were examined by complainant including himself. Complainant CW1 has deposed that his wife Pushpa Rani had tried to beat her. He has further stated that on 15.10.2014 Pushpa, Ranjan and Brij Narain restrained him and his motherinlaw from entering into court and extended life threats. He also found his motorcycle damaged. He has also deposed that on Ashish Singh v. Pushpa Singh & Ors. Page No . 3 of 3 27.10.2014, Pushpa, Brij Narain and Indal had caught hold of him and threatened to kill him. He has also deposed that on 24.01.2017 Indal tried to beat him in the Family Court.
3. CW2 has deposed that on 15.10.2014 Pushpa, Ranjan and Brij Narain had restrained her and complainant from coming to the court and extended threats. She has also deposed that on 27.10.2014 she saw Pushpa and Brij Narain breaking the motorcycle. Further, she has stated that Brij Narain, Pushpa and Indal had caught hold of the collar of the complainant and threatened him.
4. Inquiry report was called from the police, as per which NCR u/s 506/427/34 IPC has already been lodged at the instance of the complainant.
5. I have heard the arguments and carefully perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in „Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors.‟, (2015) 3 SCC 424, held as under: "8. .....At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not."
Ashish Singh v. Pushpa Singh & Ors. Page No . 3 of 3
6. Since it has been specifically alleged that Pushpa, Brij Narain and Indal had caught hold the collar of the complainant, prima facie offence u/s 352 IPC (criminal assault) is made out against the accused. Further, it has also been deposed that Pushpa, Ranjan and Brij Narain have restrained them from coming to the court. Hence, offence u/s 341 IPC is made out against accused Pushpa, Ranjan and Brij Narain.
7. Though it has been deposed by CW2 that Pushpa and Brij Narain had broken the motorcycle of the complainant, but there is nothing on record to show that loss of Rs.50/ or more has been caused. Hence, ofence u/s 427 IPC is not made out. Nor has the complainant deposed that he was alarm by the threats given by the accused persons. Accordingly, offence of criminal intimidation is not made out.
8. Accordingly, accused persons namely Pushpa, Brij Narain, Ranjan and Indal be summoned for 07.01.2019 on filing of PF.
(Prayank Nayak)
MM02(KKD/SHD)/Delhi
11.10.2018
Ashish Singh v. Pushpa Singh & Ors. Page No . 3 of 3