Delhi District Court
Hansraj vs Ravinder Kumar on 6 April, 2016
HANSRAJ V. RAVINDER KUMAR
CC No. 110/1/10
PS Moti Nagar
06.04.2016
Present : Complainant in person.
1.Vide this order, the undersigned shall decide whether the accused should be summoned for the offence alleged against him on the basis of evidence led by the complainant at pre summoning stage.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused is the elder son of the complainant and is residing at the first floor of J-6 Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. The accused is harassing the complainant in order to grab his house and business. Accused had assaulted the complainant on early occasions also. On 11.08.2010 the accused came to the workshop of the complainant in his absence and broke open all the locks/doors of the work shops. The complainant immediately reached to his shop and saw that the accused was lotting the articles from the shop.
3. At pre summoning stage complainant examined four witnesses in total.
Complainant has examined himself as CW1, his younger son namely Sh. Naveen Kumar as CW-2, one Sh. Natha Singh as CW-3 and Ct. Bhagwan Singh as CW-4.
4. In his testimony it is deposed by the complainant/CW-1 that he was running a furniture work shop at J-6, Kailash Park, Najafgarh road under the name and style of M/s Jagdamba Furnitures for the last 35 years. It is stated that on 11.08.2010 he was at his house at Kirti Nagar. He received information that accused Ravinder along with his associates was trying to break open the lock of the aforesaid shop. It is stated that on that he alongwith his younger son Naveen and some other persons immediately rushed to the shop where he found that Ravinder and his associates were inside the said workshop. The said associates were not known to him. It is CC no. 110/1 PS Moti Nagar Page 1 of 4 stated that on that he along with his son namely Naveen and other shopkeepers namely Natha Singh and Jaspal Singh confronted the accused and asked him the reason for breaking the locks of his workshop. On that accused got annoyed and forcibly pushed the complainant repeatedly. On that PCR was called. Police officials reached the spot, however, they assisted the accused in all possibilities. It is stated that workshop was having raw material including generator and various apparatus. It is stated by the witness that he purchased the shop in the year 1981 for a consideration amount of Rs. 25,000/-. It is stated that he is the proprietor of the said shop. He exhibited the complaint made to the police officials as CW1/A, General power of Attorney Ex. CW1/B, electricity bills for September 2009 as Ex. CW1/C and electricity bills in his name for the period January, 2010, March 2010, May 2010 and July 2010 as Ex. CW1/D collectively. He has also exhibited on record property tax paid in respect of the shop and the copy of cheque whereby the same was paid as Ex. CW1/E, receipt Ex. CW1/F. He also exhibited copy of his income tax returns as Ex. CW1/G. It is stated by him that his son Ravinder has assaulted him with fists and blows and wanted to grab his property . It is stated that he has also extended the life threats to kill him if the complainant would dare to come to that property.
5. CW-2 Sh. Naveen Kumar deposed on the same lines as that of CW-1. It is also stated by him that on 15.05.2010 and 17.05.2010 accused had assaulted the complainant. It is also stated by him that accused has also assaulted him on 03.06.2010.
6. CW-3 Sh. Natha Singh stated that he is carrying out business at A-3, Kailash Park, Delhi. It is stated that complainant and his both sons were known to him. It is stated that on 11.08.2010 at about 3-4 PM he heard some noise towards the shop of the complainant bearing no. J-6 Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. On hearing the noise he reached the the spot wherein he saw that the locks of the Hansraj shop no. J-6, CC no. 110/1 PS Moti Nagar Page 2 of 4 Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi was in occupation of the accused and locks placed over it have been lying over it. It is stated that the complainant made call to the police. In the meantime, he returned to his shop. It is stated that further police officials were present at the spot. It is stated that the accused was accompanied by 2-3 other persons. In his further examination in chief u/s 311 Cr.P.C it is stated by him that when he reached the spot he saw that accused Ravinder Kumar was breaking the lock of the premises of J-6 Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. It is stated by him that the said premises were never in possession of Ravinder Kumar prior to 11.08.2010.
7. CW-4 Ct. Bhagwan Singh brought the original record of DD no. 36A dated 11.08.2010. The photocopy of the aforesaid DD is Ex. CW4/A.
8. On the basis of these evidences it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that accused Ravinder has committed offences punishable 392/379/452/506 IPC. Hence, he may be summoned to face trial for the same.
9. The argument on behalf of the complainant have been heard and the record has been perused.
10. From the evidences led before the court it is prima facie evident that complainant was manhandled / beaten up by the accused, further, accused had also threatened to kill him. Thus, it is apparent that there are prima facie evidence on record to summon the accused for commission of offence U/s 323 IPC and u/s 506(II) IPC. However, the ingredients of Section 379 IPC or 392 IPC are not made out in the present case as contention of the complainant is that the accused had taken over the possession of the shop of the complainant. Thus, the accused did not moved the movable property of the complainant, hence, offence u/s 379 IPC or 392 IPC are not made out.
11. It is the contention of the complainant that he was in possession of the shop at J-6, Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road and the accused who is his CC no. 110/1 PS Moti Nagar Page 3 of 4 elder son forcefully taken over the possession of the same. Complainant also examined PW-3 Natha Singh who deposed on record that he had seen the accused breaking open the locks of the shop. However, no such broken locks or their keys have been exhibited on record to prove that complainant was actually in possession of that shop on the date of incident. It is also to be noted that at the time of deciding 156(3) Cr.P.C application report was sought from the police whereon status report was filed wherein it was stated that accused was in settled possession of the shop on the date of alleged incident along with the report statement of three near by shopkeepers namely Tejinder Pal Singh, Vicky @ Sunny and Manish Manocha who have stated that accused was having settled possession of the shop with himself. However, said Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Vicky @ Sunny and Manish Manocha have not been examined before the court thus, court has to rely on on oath testimony of the complainant, his son Naveen and Sh. Natha Singh. From the testimony of complainant, his son Naveen Kumar and Natha Singh it is prima facie established that accused has committed offence u/s 452 IPC as well. Since, the accused was accompanied by some unknown persons, hence, the substantive sections be read with section 34 IPC.
12. Let accused Ravinder Kumar be summoned to face trial for commission of offence U/s 323/506/452/34 IPC on filing PF returnable on 30.04.2016.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04:West:THC:Delhi 06.04.2016.
CC no. 110/1 PS Moti Nagar Page 4 of 4