Delhi District Court
Babu Lal S/O Sh. Kazar Ram vs The State on 27 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR No.178/17
Babu Lal s/o Sh. Kazar Ram
R/o 290, Mangapuri,
Palam, Delhi
..... Revisionist/Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Laddo Devi
W/o Late Sh. Kalyam Singh
3. Rajendrs
S/o Late Sh. Kalyam Singh
4. Jai Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Kalyam Singh
All R/o B-95, Dakshinpuri,
Sector-5, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar
New Delhi
5. Sita Ram
S/o Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o B-201, Dakshinpuri,
Sector-5, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar
New Delhi
6. Nai
C/o Sh. Sita Ram
7. Madrassi
..... Respondents
Date of institution of appeal : 22.05.2017
Final arguments heard on : 04.01.2018
Date of final order : 27.01.2018
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the present revision petition preferred against the order dated 13.02.2017 vide which the CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.1/8 complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant herein against six proposed accused including the respondent no.2, 3 & 4 herein was dismissed by Ld. trial court u/s 203 Cr.P.C. on account of bar of limitation. While dismissing the complaint, Ld. trial court observed that "In view of the facts of the present matter, even if it is assumed that on 20.05.2003 and 14.03.2004, the accused persons had committed any offence, at the most that could be considered to be of causing simple hurt, as provided u/s 323 IPC and as per the relevant provision of Cr.P.C., a limitation period of one year is prescribed for taking cognizance in such case. In the present matter, the complaint was filed beyond period of limitation, only on 11.08.2006 and no ground is pleaded for condonation of the delay caused in filing of same".
2. The revision has been preferred on the ground that Ld. trial court wrongly dismissed the complaint despite the fact that sufficient evidence was led on record by the complainant for summoning the proposed accused i.e. respondent no. 2 to 4 herein. Further that, ld. trial court without examining the veracity of documents wrongly dismissed the complaint on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
3. Ld. counsel appearing for appellant argued on the lines of the grounds set out in the revision petition for challenging the impugned order.
4. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 to 4 argued that with regard to alleged incident of 14.03.2004, a separate FIR no.141/2004 u/s 323/341 IPC was already registered against the CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.2/8 respondent no.2 to 4 and in the said FIR, they have already been acquitted. It is further argued that present complaint before trial court was filed with relation to same incident just to harass the respondents and summoning of respondents in said complaint would be in violation of Article 20 of Constitution which bars double jeopardy. Certified copy of said judgment of acquittal dated 27.07.2007 is also placed on record.
5. Before adverting to the respective contentions of the counsels and the evidence adduced before the trial court in pre- summoning evidence, I deem it appropriate to narrate the brief history of the case.
6. As per trial court record, the revisionist had filed a criminal complaint bearing CC no.56/1, for taking cognizance against the prospective accused persons for the offences u/s 307/324/506 r/w 34 IPC. In pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined three witnesses including himself. Vide order dated 05.03.2013, the complaint was dismissed by the trial court on account of lack of any medical documents for ascertaining the nature of injuries and since the complaint was filed after two and half years of alleged incident of assault, the complaint was dismissed on account of ground of limitation. Against said order, a revision was preferred by the revisionist which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2013 and the case was remanded back to the trial court with direction to give the revisionist/complainant one opportunity to bring medical evidence pertaining to incident dated 14.03.2004 and for consideration of the matter afresh in terms of applicable law. Thereafter, CW4 was examined by the complainant for proving the relevant medical record CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.3/8 on 04.06.2015 and the case was adjourned for arguments on summoning. However, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, Ld. trial court vide impugned order dated 13.02.2017 was pleased to dismiss the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. on the same very ground of limitation by observing that from the evidence adduced on record at the most the offence of Section 323 IPC is made out and since the complaint was filed beyond period of one year from the date of alleged incident of assault, no cognizance can be taken of said offence.
7. I have carefully perused the trial court record which shows that prior to the case was remanded back vide order dated 31.08.2013 passed by the court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ASJ-02, South District, complainant had examined four witnesses including himself as CW1 in pre-summoning evidence. Complainant had examined his wife Smt. Saraswati and his son Jeetu as CW2 & CW3 respectively. Record reveals that one record clerk from AIIMS hospital was also examined but instead of being examined as CW4, he was inadvertently examined as CW3 and he had brought the record of the MLC no.52875 & 26159 dated 20.05.2003 and 14.03.2004 respectively of complainant's wife Smt. Saraswati and same were exhibited during his examination as Ex. CW3/A & CW3/A1. Perusal of the trial court record however, shows that both the said documents Ex. CW3/A & CW3/A1 are the photocopies of same MLCs dated 20.05.2003 and there is no MLC of Smt. Saraswati of 14.03.2004 on record. On the copy of the MLC dated 20.05.2003 there seems to be no mention about the nature of injuries sustained by the patient Smt. Saraswati.
CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.4/88. After the case was remanded back, the complainant examined one more witness Narender Pal Singh, AAO, Safdarjung hospital who brought the admission register of the patient Saraswati w/o Babu Lal who got admitted in Safdarjung hospital on 14.03.2004 vide MRD no. 646881 in Emergency Ward B, Surgical Unit-V and placed the attested photocopy of the extract of admission register as Ex. CW4/A and stated that discharge record was destroyed as it pertained to more than 10 years. The photocopy of the discharge summary Mark 'A' of the patient Saraswati is showing the date of her admission in the hospital as 14.03.2004 and date of her discharge as 15.03.2004, but the same is also not reflecting that the patient Saraswati had sustained any grievous injuries within the meaning of Section 320 of IPC.
9. I also carefully perused the statement of complainant, his wife and son who were examined as CW1 to CW3 respectively wherein they have stated regarding the alleged incident of 14.03.2004 which occurred outside their house when the complainant alongwith his son went out to fetch cake for the birthday celebration of his son as it is alleged that proposed accused including the respondent no.2 to 4 herein started pelting stones upon the complainant as well as on his wife and they both, sustained injuries and the complainant's wife Saraswati Devi remained admitted in the hospital.
10. No protest petition was filed by the complainant after the police filed the charge sheet in said FIR no.141/2004 pertaining to the same very incident of 14.03.2004. As per the judgment dated 27.07.2007, certified copy of which is on record, charge sheet in said CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.5/8 FIR was filed by the police before the court on 05.11.2004 while the present complaint was filed by the complainant only on 11.08.2006 i.e. after more than two years of filing of charge sheet. There is nothing on record even to show that any complaint narrating said facts that complainant's wife was assaulted by accused after entering into complainant's house was ever made by the complainant or his wife in the concerned police station or with the higher police authorities. Even the statement/complaint on the basis of which the FIR no.141/2004 PS Ambedjkar Nagar was lodged has not been filed on record. But, considering the fact that in said FIR only charges u/s 323/341 IPC were framed by the court, it is clear that no such allegations of house tress-pass were raised by the complainant or other injured.
11. It is also pertinent to mention that though the complainant Babu Lal and his wife Saraswati Devi who were examined as CW1 & CW2 have alleged in their examination that CW2 Smt. Saraswati Devi was assaulted by Lado Devi after entering into the complainant's house but CW2 Jeetu who is their son and who was also allegedly present at the time of said incident has nowhere stated that his mother was hit by Lado Devi inside their house. Furthermore, on the one hand, CW2 has alleged that at the time of incident, she was inside the house and Lado Devi came there and hit her on her head with a heavy stone and as a consequence she (CW2) became unconscious and did not know as what happened thereafter. While on the other hand, she stated that on 14.03.2004, when it was her son's birthday proposed accused Jai Prakash, Rajender, Lado Devi came and hit her husband (CW2's husband) outside the house. Here, it is pertinent to note that if she was inside the house how did she know CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.6/8 as to who all assaulted her husband outside the house. Here, I may mention that it is nowhere CW2's version that she had been informed afterwards about the assault on her husband at the hands of said persons. In the above facts and circumstances, it appears that CW1 & CW2 have improved their version by falsely narrating the story of the assault being committed on Saraswati inside their house just to make out a graver offence against the accused persons.
12. Even otherwise, if the complainant were actually aggrieved by the lesser offences invoked by the police, the complainant should have immediately approached the court with the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on which he could have got the opportunity to lead evidence after filing of charge sheet in the police case or he should have filed the protest petition after filing of charge sheet in said FIR whereas, none of said two course were adopted by the complainant as he slept over the matter for more than two years and filed the present complaint on 11.08.2006 alleging various incident of assault on him and his family members including the alleged incident of 14.03.2004 in respect of which FIR no.141/2004, PS Ambedkar Nagar u/s 323/341/34 IPC was already lodged two years before.
13. Considering the aforementioned material on record, I am of the view that the trial court was justified in declining cognizance as from the evidence adduced on record by the complainant except the offence of Section 323 IPC, no other offence was made out because the medical documents placed on record nowhere suggested that either the complainant or his wife Saraswati Devi had suffered any grievous injuries.
CR No.178/17 Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.7/814. From the material on record at the most, a case of simple injury was made out for which the maximum punishment prescribed under law is one year imprisonment, and for the offences punishable with imprisonment of a term not exceeding one year, Section 468 (2)
(b) prescribes the limitation period of one year for taking cognizance of such offences.
15. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Ld. trial court has rightly declined the cognizance and dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
16. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
17. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SUNENA SHARMA)
on 27.01.2018 Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.178/17
Babu Lal vs. State & Ors. Page No.8/8