Delhi District Court
Wasif & Ors vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Revision No.66/14
Wasif & Ors. ......Petitioners
Versus
State & Ors. .......Respondents
Date of institution : 05.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2014
J U D G M E N T
Present revision petition has been filed against order dt.24.05.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Complaint no.116/1/1 titled as Mohd. Shamim V. Wasif, petitioner herein have been arrayed as accused in criminal complaint.
2. Vide impugned order, Trial Court has allowed application for substitution of complainant (since deceased) and permitted his son to proceed with the criminal complaint.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per averments made in the complaint only the complainant was victim - the eye witness and that since he has left th is world, his son cannot be substituted in his place so as to 1 pursue the complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to decision in Subbanna Hegde and Ors. V. Dyavappa Gowda, 1980 Crl.L.J. 1405.
3. Learned counsel for complainant - respondent no.2 herein has submitted that in the given facts and circumstances, learned Trial Magistrate has rightly allowed son of complainant (since deceased) to pursue the same. In this regard, reference has been made to decision in Ghisa Ram Deceased, Through his Attorney Madan Lal V. NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2011 VIII AD (Delhi) 76 and Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. V. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (Dead) by LRs & Anr., 2007 Cri. L.J. 2306.
4. A perusal of Trial Court Record would reveal that after recording of evidence summoning order was passed, vide which all the petitioners herein were summoned as accused for offences U/s 307 & 436 IPC in addition to offences already mentioned in case FIR no.238/2001.
File reveals that case FIR no.238/2001 came to be registered for offences U/s 147/148/149/186/152/380/506/323/435/427/383/332/ 34 IPC.
5. In Subbanna Hegde's case (supra) cited by learned counsel for petitioner, reference was made to provisions of Sec.256 Cr.P.C. Sec.256 Cr.P.C. pertains to trial of summons cases.
Here is a case alleging commission of offence including offence U/s 307 2 IPC. Offence U/s 307 IPC is cognizable offence and triable by the Court of Session. This court finds that in the given facts and circumstances, death of the complainant has not caused abatement of proceedings. In this view of the matter, reference may be made to decision in Rashida Kamaluddin Syed's case (supra).
6. Furthermore, herein, the case of the complainant is based not only on the allegations levelled by the complainant but also on the statements of four other witnesses, namely, Mohd. Babbar (CW2), Mohd. Yawar (CW3), (CW4) Mohd. Jahid and Ms. Heena (CW5). In the facts and circumstances, decision in Subbanna Hegde's case (supra), does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the revision petition, same deserves to be dismissed. Same is hereby dismissed.
8. It may be mentioned here that in the impugned order, it finds mention that learned counsel for the accused - petitioner herein also relied on certain case laws in support of submissions put forth by him. But the authorities cited by learned counsel for the accused - petitioner before the Trial Court do not find mention in the impugned order. When the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate referred to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the complainant - respondent no.2 herein in the impugned order, there does not seem to be any justification not to refer to the authorities cited by counsel for 3 accused while disposing of the application vide the impugned order. In the given situation, it becomes difficult for the court of revision to find out as to which case law was referred to before the court below and as to what weighed with the court in observing that the same was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the given case. For guidance, it is mentioned here that the authorities cited by learned counsel for the parties must be mentioned by the court below while passing order, so that Court of revision or Court of appeal is able to appreciate the reasoning given by Metropolitan Magistrate.
Trial Court Record be returned. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Parties to appear before Trial Court on 15.07.2014.
Announced in Open Court
on 11.07.2014 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
4