Delhi District Court
Amit Kumar Singh vs Arti on 24 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH REETESH SINGH: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-2 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.145/2019
In the matter of
Amit Kumar Singh
S/o Danvir Singh,
R/o A-199, G.D. Colony,
Gharoli Dairy Farm,
New Delhi-110096
............... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Arti
W/o Sh. Amit Kumar Singh,
R/o A106, Gali No.3,
Mahalaxmi Enclave,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
2. Krishan Pal Shishodia,
R/o A106, Gali No.3,
Mahalaxmi Enclave,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
3. Madhu Shishodia
W/o Sh. Krishan Pal Shishodia
R/o A106, Gali No.3,
Mahalaxmi Enclave,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
4. Sunny
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal Shishodia
Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 1/9
R/o A-106, Gali No.3,
Mahalaxmi Enclave,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
................. Respondents
Date of institution : 06.07.2019
Final arguments : 23.03.2021
Date of order : 24.03.2021
ORDER
24.03.2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 24.05.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court by which summons for the offence under section 420 of the IPC were directed to be issued only against the respondent no.1 and the prayer to summon the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 was declined.
2. Before this Court Mr. Adab Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent no.1 Aarti is the daughter of respondent nos.2 and 3 and sister of the respondent no.4. He submitted that the respondent no.1 in connivance with the respondents 2, 3 and 4 concealed that she was already married and induced the petitioner to get married to her. He submitted that the petitioner examined four witnesses at the pre-summoning stage, all of whom deposed that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were aware of the fact that the respondent no.1 was already married and despite having the said knowledge, they in league with each other fraudulently induced the petitioner to get married to the respondent no.1. He Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 2/9 submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the statements of the witnesses examined at the pre-summoning stage and in a mechanical manner declined the prayer to summon the other three accused persons i.e. respondent no.2,3 and 4 herein.
3. Mr. Adab Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Trial Court, at the stage of consideration of issuance of summons, could not have entered into the question as to whether the material on record would lead to conviction. The court at this stage cannot weigh the evidence meticulously as a Trial Court. He submitted that the consideration at the stage of summoning is not the same as at the stage of framing of charge. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Shivraj Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl Appeal No.255/2019 decided on 12.02.2019.
4. Sh. Sakil Ahmed Ld. Counsel made submissions on behalf of the respondents. He has also filed written submissions in support of his oral arguments. He submitted that the witnesses examined by the complainant are interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their statements. The allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and based on fabricated evidence. He submitted that CW-1 Pooja has made false statements out of personal vengeance against the respondent no.1. CW-2 Pratap Singh is an accused against whom the respondent no.1 has lodged an FIR which is pending. CW-3 Amrendra Kumar is not trustworthy and his statement has been procured by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the alleged verbal admission of respondent no.1 regarding existence of her previous marriage is insufficient evidence of the existence of her alleged Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 3/9 first marriage. It is submitted that facts relating to the previous marriage of respondent no.1 is required to be proved by credible independent evidence.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. I have gone through written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the record of the Ld. Trial Court.
6. The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 24.05.2019 vide which the Ld. Trial Court declined the issuance of summons to respondent no.2, 3 and 4. The same reads as under: -
"24.05.2019 Present : None.
Arguments have already been heard.
Record perused.
It appears that the complainant solemnized marriage with accused no.1 and later on found that his wife was already married. Now the complainant wants that accused no.1 along with her family members should be summoned for an offence punishable under section 420 IPC r/w the conspiracy.
The complainant examined himself along with three other witnesses in pre-summoning evidence.
On the basis of material available on record, I am of the opinion that a case u/s 420 IPC is made out. However, the angle of conspiracy cannot be invoked. Therefore, family members of accused no.1 cannot be indicted.
Let accused no.1 be summoned on complainant taking all necessary steps. List on 21.07.2019".
7. By the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court directed issuance of summons for the offence under section 420 IPC only qua the respondent no.1 and declined the prayer qua the respondents 2 to 4.
Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 4/98. Before proceeding further, the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the degree of satisfaction to be arrived at and approach to be followed at the stage of summoning under section 203 of the CrPC ought to be noticed. In the case of Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary reported in (2010) 7 SCC 578 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under: -:
"18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay3, Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar4, Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose5, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B.6, Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan7, Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh8 and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.9
19. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose5, it was held that where there was prima facie evidence, the Magistrate was bound to issue process and even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter has to be left to be decided by an appropriate forum at an appropriate stage. It was further held that the issue of process can be refused only when the Magistrate finds that the evidence led by the complainant is self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy.
20. In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan7, this Court examined the scheme of Sections 200 to 204 and held: (SCC p. 503, para 10) "10. ... At the stage of Sections 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court.Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 5/9
The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in crutinizing the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges."
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh8 in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code . To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry.""
(emphasis supplied)
9. The allegations made by the petitioner in his complaint before the Ld. Trial Court are that on 29.01.2017, he got married with the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 subsequently admitted to the petitioner that she had married one Pawan. It is alleged that respondent no.1 and the respondents 2, 3 and 4 withheld the information of the first marriage of the respondent no.1 with Pawan and her previous love affair with one Pratap.Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 6/9
10. CW-1 is Pooja wife of Pawan (with whom the respondent no.1 Arti was having an affair and had allegedly married). CW-1 in her statement has stated that she had gotten married with Pawan on 17.06.2012. Pawan had an extra-marital affair with Aarti. Her husband Pawan and Aarti stayed together in hotel Sandberry on 19.09.2017 and that divorce proceedings are pending between CW1 Pooja and her husband Pawan.
11. CW-2 is Pratap Singh. He stated that he knew the family of respondent no.1 Aarti since 2007. There were money disputes pending between his family and family of Aarti. Aarti has made false allegations against him regarding pressurizing her for marriage. He was forced to give money to her family members to drop the case against him. He has deposed that Pawan wanted to divorce his wife Pooja (CW-1) to get married to Aarti. This information was given to him by respondent nos. 2 and 3 and respondent no.1 herself. He has deposed that Aarti and Pawan were having an affair and were thinking of getting married.
12. CW-3 Amrendra Kumar has stated that respondent no.1 Arti was working as an intern in the hospital in which he also was working. He has deposed that Pawan was introduced by Aarti to him as the person to whom she was get to married.
13. CW-4 is the petitioner / complainant. He has stated that he got married with the Aarti on 29.01.2017. Aarti was having an extra marital affair with Pawan who is the brother-in-law of Jyoti, the elder sister of the respondent no.1. He stated that Aarti and Pawan had stayed together in hotel Sandberry after which he i.e. the complainant had filed a complaint in PS Prashant Vihar under sections 497/493 Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 7/9 IPC. He stated that when the petitioner confronted the respondent no.3 about the affairs of Aarti, she was not shocked as thus she was aware of the same. He deposed that on 07.10.2017 Aarti admitted that she had married Pawan and had kept the petitioner / complainant in the dark about the same.
14. As per the submissions made before this Court by the petitioner/complainant, Aarti was already married with Pawan prior to getting married to him. However in para 7(c) of the complaint filed before the Ld. Trial Court, the complainant has alleged that "At present, Pawan is undergoing a divorce with his current wife." CW-1 Pooja is the wife of Pawan. CW-1 has deposed that she had gotten married to Pawan on 17.06.2012 and that divorce proceedings were pending between them. The submissions made by the petitioner/complainant before this court and the record of Ld. Trial Court are at variance with each other on the aspect of Aarti being already married with Pawan prior to her marriage with the petitioner/complainant. Thus the evidence led by the complainant on the aspect of Aarti being married to Pawan before her marriage with the petitioner /complainant is contradictory.
15. In para 7(f) of the complaint, the petitioner/ complainant has stated that "It has also come to the knowledge of the complainant that a few months before his marriage with Accused No.1, she had indulged in an affair with a man named Pratap." Pratap was examined as CW2. He has stated that Aarti had made false allegations against him in the past regarding him pressurizing her for marriage. Thus CW-2 has denied having any affair with Aarti. Even this aspect of the allegations of the petitioner/complainant is at variance with the statement of CW-2.Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 8/9
16. The Ld. Trial Court has declined summoning the respondents 2,3 and 4 for the offence of cheating. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and the statements of the witnesses, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court suffers from any illegality or impropriety. The evidence on record is insufficient to proceed against them for the allegation that they had concealed affairs of respondent no.1 or had induced the petitioner /complainant to marry the respondent no.1 by concealing material facts. It cannot be presumed that they were aware about the private matters of the respondent no.1.
17. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.
18. It is clarified that the above discussion is only for the purposes of adjudication of the present revision petition.
19. File be consigned to record room.
(Reetesh Singh) ASJ-2/KKD/East/24.03.2021 Announced in open court on 24.03.2021 Crl. Revision No. 145/2019 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Aarti & Ors Page 9/9