Delhi District Court
Dr. Yogesh Gondal vs Manmohan Raj Bindra on 23 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA No. 378 of 2017
Dr. Yogesh Gondal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap Gondal,
R/o 1st Floor, J24, Jangpura Extn.,
New Delhi ....... Appellant
Vs
1. Manmohan Raj Bindra
S/o Late Sh. Prithvi Raj Bindra
R/o 5, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
New Delhi - 110005
2. Kishan Lal Paliwal
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Mal Paliwal,
R/o 792, Kundaywalan, Daiwara,
Ahmeri Gate, Delhi ....... Respondents
Instituted on : 14.09.2017
Argued on : 03.04.2019
Decided on : 23.04.2019
JUDGMENT
1 The appellant has impugned the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court vide which his application u/s 340 Cr.PC was dismissed Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 1/8 being premature.
2 The appeal has been filed on the grounds that application u/s 340 Cr.PC can be filed at any stage. The cause of action has arisen in his favour when the respondent have made false allegations and deposed in the Court. The proceedings u/s 340 Cr.PC are not contingent upon the summoning of the accused. The complaint has been filed on false allegations, concealment of facts and misrepresentation. The false statement was made before the court with the sole purpose of implicating him. The actual facts and documents have been deliberately concealed from the Court as respondents knew that the disclosure of facts and documents would not have made any case against him. The respondents have conspired, with dishonest intention, in order to injure his reputation. Hence, this appeal.
3 The respondent no. 1 has filed reply to the effect that he is a Senior Citizen and non resident Indian. His wife has been residing at 5, DBG Road, New Delhi. He is the only son of aggrieved person/victim (now deceased) namely Smt. Raj Mohani Bindira w/o Late Sh. Prithviraj Bindira. He is real brotherinlaw of Prashant Gondal (i.e. soninlaw of aggrieved person). The aggrieved person was residing with him at 5, DBG Road, New Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 2/8 Delhi. The appellant alongwith his family members has an eye over the property of Smt. Raj Mohani Mitra and wanted to throw her out of the said premises. He has filed a civil suit no. 2611/90 in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and obtained stay order in his favour. The aggrieved person has got his legal share by the decree of the Court in HUF Properties including House No. 5, DBG Road, New Delhi. He alongwith his friend has tried to pursuade the appellant and his family member that they should not deny the freedom of movement to the mother but in vain. He came to know through deceased respondent no. 2 that it was told to the mother that her only son has expired. He visited his mother on 18.05.2017 but he was obstructed by Pankaj Gondal to meet his mother upon which he has filed a complaint. The appellant and others have caused emotional trauma to the aggrieved person. He has made a complaint to the police but in vain and thereafter he has taken the help from "Help Age India" and reported the matter to DCP Central. The appellant has filed a civil suit against him to restrain him from entering in the premises where aggrieved person was confined. The Court has appointed local commissioner and aggrieved person has shown her desire to be with him. He has suffered from the hands of appellant and others due to their pathetic Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 3/8 attitude. He has preferred a complaint no. 210/1/10 before Ld. MM wherein the witnesses were examined. Appellant, Indu Gondal and Prashant Gondal were summoned u/s 342/34 IPC. The revision against the said order was allowed and matter was remanded back for fresh speaking order. He has preferred a revision no. 300/2015 tittled as Manmohan Raj Bindra Vs. State against the order dated 20.02.2016. The documents annexed with the complaint made out a case against the appellant and others. The illegal, malafide and nefarious activities of the appellant and others show that serious offence case been committed.
4 The present appeal is not maintainable in the absence of any summoning order. The appeal is bared by limitation as no application for condonation of delay is filed. The appeal contains bald and vague allegations. The entire allegations do not constitute any offence u/s 340 Cr.PC. The order dated 25.07.2017 is well reasoned order. The appeal be dismissed. 5 Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that he has locus standi to file the application u/s 340 Cr.PC. He further submitted that the application u/s 340 Cr.PC has been dismissed on the ground that it is premature. He further submitted that application should have been kept pending and decided Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 4/8 at the time of the final disposal of the case. He has placed reliance on Vishal Kapoor Vs. Sonal Kapoor 2014 SCC Online Delhi 4484, Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. International Tractors Ltd. & Ors., ILR (2010) II Delhi 352, N. Natrajan Vs. B. K. Subbarao (2003) 2 SCC 76 & Manohar Lal Vs. Vinesh Anand & Ors. (2001) 5 SCC 407.
6 Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the applicaton has been rightly dismissed by Ld. Trial Court. He further submitted that appellant was not summoned by the Court as complaint was dismissed so the application u/s 340 Cr.PC does no lie. 7 Heard and perused the record.
8 The perusal of the record shows that a criminal complaint was filed by respondent no. 1 against the appellant and others. The respondent no. 1 has led the presummoning evidence. The appellant alongwith Mrs. Indu Gondal and Prashant Gondal was summoned for the offence u/s. 342/34 IPC. No summoning order was passed against Pankaj Gondal and Mrs. Sunil Chopra.
9 The appellant has filed the revision no. 37/2015 tittled as Yogesh Gondal Vs. State & Ors. against the order dated 05.08.2013 in the Court of Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 5/8 Session. The revision was allowed and matter was remanded back vide order dated 20.02.2016 by my Ld. Predecessor.
10 The revision filed by the respondent no. 1 against the order dated 05.08.2013 for not summoning Pankaj Gondal & Mrs. Sunil Chopra was dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor.
11 The respondent no. 1 has filed the petition u/s 482 Cr.PC against the order dated 20.02.2016.
12 On 25.07.2017 the appellant has filed an application u/s 340 Cr.PC. There was no stay order from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the application u/s 340 Cr.PC being prenature on the ground that summoning order has yet to be passed. 13 The respondent no. 1 has already led presummoning evidence on the basis of which appellant was summoned though the said summoning order was set aside by the revisional Court and matter was remanded back to pass fresh speaking order.
14 The doctrine of locus standi is total foreign to the criminal jurisprudence as held by their lordship in Manohar Lal Vs. Vinesh Anand, SUPRA. The appellant was the proposed accused against whom the evidence Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 6/8 was led. The criminal complaint was dismissed without summoning the appellant. The appellant is the effected party.
15 The presummoning evidence has already been led by the respondent no. 1. The fresh summoning order was to be passed after the order of revisional Court dated 20.02.2016. The application u/s 340 Cr.PC was filed before the passing of the fresh summoning order. The passing of any order on the application u/s 340 Cr.PC during the pendency of the proceedings of the case gives an edge to other party which may give some advantage to the other party. The application u/s 340 Cr.PC should be disposed of alongwith main proceedings i.e. at the final stage. The application should have been kept pending instead of dismissing the same on the ground that it is premature. The Ld. Trial Court has not adopted the right procedure while dismissing the application. Support is drawn from Vishal Kapoor Vs. Sonal Kapoor & Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. International Tractors Ltd. & Ors., SUPRA.
16 I find an infirmity in the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court.
Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 7/8 17 The order dated 25.07.2017 vide which application 340 Cr.PC of the appellant was dismissed is set aside. The matter is remanded back for disposal in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to appear before Ld. Trail Court on 26.04.2019. Ld. Trial Court shall proceed with the application u/s 340 Cr.PC in accordance with law.
18 The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in abovestated terms. 19 TCR alongwith copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
20 File be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the
open court on
23rd April 2019 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)
Add. Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
Yogesh Gondal Vs. Manmohan Raj Bindra - CA No. 378 of 2017 8/8