Delhi District Court
Bhawna Seth vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 May, 2009
1 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR:
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:(NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
Crl. Revision No.93/2008
IN THE MATTER OF :
Bhawna Seth
wife of Sh. C.L. Seth
r/o 13 & 16, DDA Flats (R.P.S.)
Mansarovar Park,
Shahdara
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Krishan Kumar Sharma
son of not known
3. Smt. Veena Sharma
wife of Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma
4. Prashant Sharma
son of Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma
All r/o Flat No. 32A,
DDA Flats, Mansarovar Park,
Shahdara, Delhi.
...........Respondents
Date of Institution of the revision 20.9.2008
Date of hearing arguments 23.4.2009
Date of decision 5.5.2009
O R D E R
The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the 2 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008 petitioner against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the learned Special Executive Magistrate, North East District Seelampur, Delhi, vide which the petitioner was issued notice under Section 111 Cr.PC. asking the petitioner to show cause why she should not be ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace during the proceedings.
The brief facts as relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the mother in law of the petitioner purchased flat No. 32A DDA Flats (RPS) Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi, in the year 2003 and started living there in one portion and remaining portion was given on rent to the respondent no. 2 and he started living with respondent no. 3 and 4 besides daughter Bhawna Sharma. There were some family dispute between the husband of the petitioner Sh. CL Seth and his elder brother Sh. Amrit Kumar Seth and taking the benefit of the same, respondent no. 2 applied for injunction and persuaded the petitioner's husband to depose in his favour and petitioner's husband appeared in the court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, learned Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and learned Civil Judge disposed of the civil suit and he directed Smt. Shanti Devi mother in law of petitioner, not to dispossess the respondent forcibly and without following the due process of law. On 16.10.2006, the petitioner's mother in law Smt. Shanti Devi left the house due to unavoidable circumstance with her elder son Sh. Amrit Kumar Seth, respondent no. 2 had made the life of Smt. Shanti Devi a hell. As soon as Smt. Shanti Devi left the house, the respondent no. 2 to 4 hatched a conspiracy to grab the property and to achieve this ulterior object they 3 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008 started using all legal or illegal methods to force Smt. Shanti Devi not to file any case against them. After obtaining the Court order, respondent no 2 to 4 and their other associates started creating nuisance in the house and thereafter respondent no. 2 to 4 target the petitioner and her family members so that eviction petition may not be filed against them. On 31.5.2008, at about 11.00 pm when the petitioner along with her family members were watching a T.V. serial, suddenly respondent no. 2 and 3 trespassed into the room of the petitioner and started shouting and abusing. In the meanwhile, their son Prashant (respondent no. 4) also entered the room and they all threatened to kill the petitioner. The petitioner saved herself and rushed to PS Mansarovar Park and lodged DD No. 56B dated 31.5.2008 the police called the accused persons and asked them not to repeat such an act in future but no penal action was taken against them. The complainant/petitioner left the police station and when she reached near Mother diary booth, MS Park (near police station) all of a sudden, respondent no. 2 to 4 and Bhawna Sharma pounced upon the petitioner and inflicted injuries with some sharp object on the right hand. The petitioner's husband intervened and tried to save the petitioner upon which, all the three respondents attacked the petitioner's husband and also caused injuries on his body. Then they left the petitioner's husband and again attacked the petitioner with fist blows and kick blows. The petitioner and her husband shouted for help and besides others Sh. Tara Chand, Sh. Suresh and Sh. Rajat Gupta reached there. Respondent no. 4 caught hold of both the hands of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 shouted that a lesson be taught to the petitioner on which respondent no. 2 in order to outrage the 4 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008 modesty of the petitioner caught hold the breast of the petitioner and pulled and thus caused injury on her right side in this process. On seeing the incident, a huge crowd gathered there and respondent no. 2 to 4 fled away from the spot and while leaving the spot, they all threatened to kill the petitioner and her children in case the matter is reported to the police. The petitioner again reached PS MS Park , but police instead of registering an FIR recorded DD and sent the petitioner for medical treatment and the petitioner was examined at GTB Hospital. Since, no action was taken against respondent no. 2 to 4 they are still threatening the petitioner and her family members with dire consequences and they also threatened to implicate the entire family in some false criminal case. As per report filed in the court of Sh. Raj Kapoor, the then learned MM Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the police filed a Kalandara under Section 107/150 Cr PC against the respondent but it seems that no Kalandara was filed at that time and a false report was submitted and now the police has fabricated the story and have initiated the proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr PC against the petitioner and the petitioner has been summoned for 22.9.2008. Notice dated 3.9.2008 under Section 107/111 Cr.PC shows that there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
Since the petitioner is not landlord and aggrieved by the said notice has filed the present revision petition. The revisionist/petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Special Executive Magistrate on the ground that the Kanaldnara filed by the police is against the law and facts of the case and the learned Special Executive Magistrate has not applied 5 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008 her mind to the facts of the case. The learned Special Executive Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner is not the landlady and the civil proceedings are already pending between the landlady and respondent no. 2. The petitioner is the aggrieved person as she was brutally assaulted number of times and she was medically examined but no action was taken against the respondent however on 15.7.2008, an FIR was registered against respondent no. 2 and daughter of respondent no. 2 at PS MS Park under Section 323/354/506/34 IPC. There was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. The petitioner is the victim and not the aggressor even then a Kalandara under Section 107/150 Cr.PC has been filed against the petitioner. The notice is based on the conjuncture as per settled law proceedings under Section 107 Cr.PC are to be initiated to maintain public peace and tranquility and cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquility or public peace. It has been submitted that the proceedings initiated by the learned Special Executive Magistrate are abuse of power and is against the law and facts of the case. Accordingly, it has been prayed that notice dated 3.9.2008 may be withdrawn and the proceedings may be dropped.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Perusal of the Kalandara under Section 107/150 Cr PC registered vide DD No. 3B dated 30.8.2008, PS MS Park clearly shows that the revisionist /petitioner is a victim and not an aggressor. Further, it 6 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008 has been held by our own Hon'ble High court in a case titled "Smt. Aarti Singh & Another Versus State & Others" reported as 83 (2000) Delhi Law Times 219, that the underline object of Section 107 Cr PC is preventive and not penal object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr PC is to maintain public peace and it cannot be used as handle in case of private dispute between individuals, where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquility. In the present case, prima facie, it transpires that the dispute is between landlord and tenant which relates to property i.e flat no. 32A DD A Flats (RPS) Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, as such, the dispute is between the individuals and there is no sufficient material on record to suggest that the revisionist/petitioner ever resorted to an act which may result into disturbance to public tranquility and breach of public peace.
Accordingly in view of the above discussion, notice dated 3.9.2008 served upon the petitioner by the learned Special Executive Magistrate Seelampur, North East District, Delhi, stands withdrawn and the proceedings initiated by the learned Special Executive Magistrate Seelampur, North East District, Delhi, on Kalandara registered vide DD No. 3B dated 30.8.2008 under Section 107/150 Cr.PC, PS MS Park, Shahdara, Delhi, are dropped against the revisionist/petitioner Bhawna Seth. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of this order and revision file be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open court on this 5 day of May 2009 th (Sudesh Kumar) Special Judge NDPS (North East) Addl.Sessions Judge, Kkd. Courts Delhi 7 Criminal Revision No. 93/2008