Delhi District Court
Sachchidanand Jha vs Ramesh Chand & Ors on 19 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K. JAIN: ASJ03: SE: SAKET COURT
COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
CR. No. 100/11
Sachchidanand Jha
.......Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
Ramesh Chand & Ors.
......Respondents
ORDER:
1. By way of present revision, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Ld. Special Executive Magistrate discharging respondents Ramesh Chand and Nirmala Devi from proceedings from proceedings u/s. 107/150 Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts as per kalandra are that on receiving DD No. 20 A, dated 27.07.2010, HC Mahender Singh alongwith HC Sandeep reached the spot where they found the dispute between party no.1. i.e. Ramesh & Nirmala and Party No.2 i.e. Sachidanand Jha, Achitanand Jha and Rekha Jha over some Mandir donations (CHADAVA) and due to this, abuses and fight took place between both the parties, however no external injuries were found and further no party had given any statement on 27.07.2010. As per kalandra, it is further alleged that on 29.07.2001, again on inquiry of DD No. 21 A, HC Mahender alongwith Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 1 of 7 SI Nirmal Kumar went to the spot and recorded the statement of both the parties and filed kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. against them in the court.
3. During proceedings, Ld. SEM has recorded the statement of the parties on oath. The summary details of their deposition as follows:
4. Petitioner Sachidanand Jha on 01.11.2010 deposed that after the death of his father, his brother Achidanand Jha was appointed as Pujari of the Mandir, however no appointment letter was given and a civil dispute is pending between both the parties. Pt. Ramesh is Pujari of two Mandirs and he is Pujari in 6 Mandirs. However, abuses going are between the wife of Pt. Ramesh and his wife Rekha and when on 27.07.2010 in the evening she was coming from a birthday party, Nirmala started abusing her. Thereafter, Nirmala hit his wife with balti (bucket). On hearing shouts, he came out and in the meanwhile Pt. Ramesh and his son caught hold of him and started beating him, his wife and daughter also started beating him, then his brother Achidanand Jha somehow saved him and his wife, further called at no. 100 and police took them to Moolchand Hospital.
5. Statement of Achidanand Jha was also recorded on oath on 12.01.2011 and stated that on 27.07.2010, he had seen that Pt. Ramesh Chand, his wife Nirmala, son Shekhar and daughter Radha all are beating his brother and bhabhi, however he saved them and after some time PCR came and took all of them to PS and thereafter took them to Moolchand Hospital and further stated that police recorded their Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 2 of 7 statement and registered the case.
6. Smt. Rekha Jha also stated that at around 6 PM, on 27.07.2011 when she came to her house, Nirmala started abusing her. In the meanwhile, some people got collected and then she went inside his room, thereafter, Nirmala, Radha, Ramesh and his son Chander Shekhar came inside and started beating her. In the meanwhile, her husband came and tried to save her. However, they started beating him also and thereafter her Devar, Achidanand came and then police was called. She further deposed that she was unconscious and was taken to Moolchand Hospital.
7. As per statement of these witnesses before the Ld. SEM, the abuses took place between them and Pt. Ramesh, his son Shekhar, wife Nirmala and daughter Radha. Sachidanand Jha stated that his wife was hit by balti whereas Rekha herself has not stated that she was hit by balti. Sachidanand stated his wife received injury but not stated that his wife was unconscious, however Rekha stated that she got unconscious and got consciousness at Moolchand hospital. Achidanand Jha also not stated that Rekha Jha got unconscious. Sachidanand and Achidanand not stated crowd gathered and thereafter all four entered in their room and beaten Rekha, whereas Rekha stated she was beaten inside her room. Further, Sachidanand stated that they went from spot to the PS and thereafter Moolchand Hospital with the permission of the police, whereas Rekha stated they went to Moolchand Hospital and do not talk about taking to police station. But Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 3 of 7 as per police version no party decided to give their statement on that date.
8. However, in cross proceedings, the statement of Nirmala was also recorded in which she stated that on 27.07.2010, she was abused by the other party and also beaten her husband and further torn her own clothes and also hit her husband with danda etc. and then police had taken them to the PS and conducted their medical examination, Ramesh Chand also deposed before the SEM and stated that the second party had beaten him and his wife and police also took them to the PS.
9. After recording of the entire evidence, the Ld. SEM observed that as dispute is of 29.07.2010 and 8 months had elapsed. Further, no untoward incident happened during the proceedings and found lot of contradictions in the testimonies of Sachidanand, Rekha and Achidanand, also found contradictions between the police witnesses and other party, hence discharged both the parties.
10. By way of the present petition, the petitioner Sachchidanand Jha has challenged the discharge of the other party i.e. Ramesh Chand and Nirmala on the ground that the proceedings conducted by the Ld. SEM is malafide and petitioner called PCR and taken to the Moolchand Hospital, then MLC was conducted and injuries were found on body of petitioner and his wife. And further due to these injuries, petitioner was infected with kidney infection and his kidney was transplanted and further in these circumstances police was bound to register the case Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 4 of 7 against the accused Ramesh Chand, Nirmala, Shekhar and Radha. He further alleged that SEM proceedings are malafide as on 15.04.2011, he orally ordered to bring Shekhar before the court as sufficient evidence was against him. However, on the next date on 29.04.2011, proceedings were dropped against the respondents.
11. Ld. counsel submitted that Ld. SEM ordered that Shekhar should be summoned as there is sufficient evidence against but a medical certificate was filed which was issued by his mama, however, Ld. SEM dropped proceedings on 29.04.2011 without any inquiry over medical certificate. Ld. counsel further submitted that there are sufficient evidence against respondents that they committed cognizable offences, however only kalandra was filed and no FIR was registered, ld. counsel further submitted that entire proceedings of Ld. SEM was biased. Ld. counsel further submitted that there is evidence against both Radha and Shekhar that they participated in beating petitioner and his family however no kalandra was filed against them.
12. Heard. The entire case of prosecution is that on 27.07.2010, both the parties were found to be abusing and fighting with each other, thereafter, on 29.07.10 kalandra was prepared, further the parties were also taken for medial examination at Moolchand Hospital. And as per medical examination there is history of assault and tenderness but there is no opinion what kind of injury was received by Sachchidanand and Rekha Jha.
13. Ld. SEM in impugned order thoroughly discussed entire evidence on Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 5 of 7 record and found various contradiction in the testimonies of Sachchidanand, Achidananda Jha and Rekha Jha inter se as well as with kalandra version and medical record
14. This court in revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to substitute its opinion over the order passed by the ld. SEM. This court only has to see whether there is any patent illegality or irregularity committed by the ld. SEM or not. The allegation of malafide against the police officers and the special Executive Magistrate firstly cannot be dealt by this court in present revisional jurisdiction, and secondly the basis of the same is not found from the record. There is allegation levelled in revision petition that accused Shekhar was assailant party but he was not made party despite oral order on 15.04.2012. Further, medical certificate filed by by SI Nirmal Kumar of Shekhar is issued by his mama. However no application in this regard is filed by the revisionist before the SEM nor those documents are part of the evidence during recording of testimonies. Further ld. Counsel submitted that IPC offences made out as Sachidanand and his family suffered the injuries. It is worth to be mentioned that IPC offences are not meant to be dealt by Ld. SEM and petitioner not filed any criminal complaint before competent court and even no application filed before Ld. SEM for direction to police to initiate IPC proceedings for cognizable offences. The Kalandra proceedings before the Ld. SEM meant only for prevention of breach of peace or for preventing commission of any cognizable offence. Ld SEM after inquiry for eight months found Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 6 of 7 numbers of contradictions in testimonies of all three witnesses i.e, Sachchidanand, Achidanand and Rekha Jha as also noticed by this court in para no. 7. Ld. SEM further observed that there is no untoward incident for eight months hence discharged both the parties. Thus, I do not find any apparent infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Ld. SEM.
15. It is averred in the present revision petition that due to said assault Sachchidanand has suffered kidney infection which is very bald statement. Further nothing came in testimonies of Sachidanand, Rekha and Achidanand before the Ld. SEM that due to that assault he suffered the kidney infection.
16. In view of aforesaid discussion, I found no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. SEM. Hence the present revision petition stands dismissed.
17. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to ld. Trial court forthwith. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
on 19th May, 2012 ASJ03/SE/New Delhi
Sachidanand Jha Vs. Ramesh Chand , CR No. 100/11, page no. 7 of 7