Delhi District Court
Manoj vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 11 April, 2012
In the Court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Additional Sessions Judge04,
South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
Criminal appeal No.23/12
In the matter of :
Manoj .........Revisionist
S/o Sh. Richh Pal,
R/o Near Talab, Pandit Wali Gali,
Ghitorni, New Delhi
Versus
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Kanwar, S/o Sh. Puran Chand
3. Raghvir, S/o Sh. Puran Chand
4. Deepak, S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal
5. Jai Bhagwan, S/o Sh. Puran Chand
6. Randhir, S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
7. Ramesh, S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan .....Respondents
Order Revisional jurisdiction has been invoked by revisionist assailing the order dt. 25.02.12 passed by Sh. Prashant Sharma, Ld. MM whereby he had dismissed the complaint case bearing FIR no. 39/01 titled as Manoj Vs. Kanwar & Ors. He had stated that the said order passed by Ld. Magistrate is not sustainable either in law CR. No. 23/12 Page No.1/6 or on facts. Ld. MM erred in law, while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. Ld. MM has not appreciated this fact while passing the impugned order that the respondent no. 2 to 7 are quarreling with his chachi and the petitioner trying to intervene the same but the respondent no. 2 to 7 took the law into their own hands and started to beat the petitioner and other family members. Meaning thereby the petitioner has no intention to quarrel but the respondent no. 2 to 7 are adamant and take the law into their own hands and has intention to beat the petitioner and his family members. Ld. MM has not considered this fact while passing the impugned order that in the said quarrel the petitioner and his relative namely Rinku has sustained injuries and they were medically examined and their MLCs were proved by the CW3 before the court of Ld. MM. But the Ld. MM has not considered this fact. He made prayer that the order be set aside and recalled and complaint be restored and accused be summoned.
Upon filing of this revision petition, trial court record was summoned. As per trial court record, a complaint was filed u/s 323/324/325/506 (II)/34 IPC by the revisionist herein against the the respondent alleging that on 27.09.09 the petitioner had gone to his chachi's resident where the defendants are also residing in the CR. No. 23/12 Page No.2/6 neighbourhood of his chachi and he saw the defendants quarreling with his chachi and he intervened and asked the defendants as to why they were abusing his chachi and all the defendants started beating the petitioner as a result the petitioner received various injuries on his body and he was also attacked by Randhir, Kanwar Lal and Deepak with lathis and iron rod and he also sustained head injury and attacked with knife as a result he received two cuts on his chest, the petitioner was medically examined at AIIMS and he got treatment and he received four stitches on his head. When he was beaten up by the defendants, his father Richhpal, uncle Gian Chand and cousin Rinky, Deepak and Lalit also come on the spot and they were also attacked by the defendants and defendants Deepak threw acid on his father Richhpal and the petitioner and his father, brother and uncle sensing trouble started running from the spot and all the defendants chased them and the petitioner and others cried for help, the public persons who had gathered there at the spot started pelting stones at the defendants. The petitioner went to the PS and narrated the matter but instead of registering the case against the defendants, the police arrested the petitioner, his brother, uncle and cousin in case FIR no. 16/09, u/s 452/323/325/506/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj (South). According to him, police should have registered the cross case but police did not register any case against the defendants as CR. No. 23/12 Page No.3/6 such he had filed the complaint. Revisionist in support of his case had examined himself, Rinku and S. Shome in regard to the pre summoning evidence. Ld. Magistrate after hearing the arguments had dismissed the complaint holding that there were no sufficient grounds for summoning the accused persons because he did not believe the version of the complainant. He further held that the pre summoning evidence was full of improvements and contradictions, rather it was a probable defence of the complainant in case FIR no. 16/09, U/s 452/323/325/506/34 IPC pending in the court. Ld. Trial court had further stated that in his pre summoning evidence, complainant narrated the incident dt. 27.09.09 with some improvements. Firstly, he mentioned the time as 10.45 pm which was not alleged by him in his complaint. Secondly, he mentioned the address of his chachi, where incident in question had occurred, for the first time, as it was not mentioned in his complaint. Thirdly, he specifically alleged that accused Kanwar Lal was holding iron rod in his hand. Randhir was having lathi in his hand and Deepak was holding knife in his hand. The said specific allegation were not mentioned in his complaint. The main grievance of the revisionist is that the Ld. Magistrate has dismissed his complaint over looking his evidence which has been corroborated from the medical evidence. It has specifically alleged by him that accused persons had fled away CR. No. 23/12 Page No.4/6 from the spot after beating them.
I have heard the revisionist. The main thrust of the arguments of the complaint is that the accused persons in the complaint filed by the revisionist had been quarelling with chachi of the revisionist and the revisionist had intervened and in the process he was beaten. Moreover, trial court should not have considered improvement made by the revisionist herein in his complaint as well as in the testimony.
It is a matter of fact that the civil case has been registered by the respondent against the revisionist and the revisionist had made improvements in the testimony as compared to the complaint. It is also matter of fact that chachi has not been examined which is the root cause. Mere sustaining injury does not create any right in favour of the revisionist for summoning the respondent. If that is the case, then every aggressor who sustained injury anyhow, even by his fault can summon other party in order to revenge.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the CR. No. 23/12 Page No.5/6 complaint. Trial court has passed a well reasoned order. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness and impropriety in the order passed by the Ld. Magistrate. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order alongwith TCR is sent back to the trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 11.04.2012 (Atul Kumar Garg)
Addl. Sessions Judge/Saket Court
New Delhi
CR. No. 23/12 Page No.6/6