Delhi District Court
Smt. Sumsu Nissa vs Sh. Ram Singh S/O Sh. Himman Tyagi on 20 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 63/1/2016
U.I.D. No. 56369/2016
P.S. Moti Nagar
Smt. Sumsu Nissa,
W/o Late Sh. Jameel Ahmed,
R/o WZ449/1, Ram Garh Colony,
Basai Darapur,
New Delhi.
......... Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Himman Tyagi,
2. Satish Tyagi
3. Vinod Tyagi
4. Raj Kumar Tyagi
All S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o WZ108, Basai Darapur,
New Delhi.
....... Respondents
Date of filing: 27.10.2016 Date of arguments: 20.07.2017 Date of order: 20.07.2017 O R D E R
1. The revisionist has filed the present revision petition UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 1 of 8 under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) against the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the court of Sh. Gajender Singh Nagar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. The revisionist/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 323/327/331/341/342/506/120B/34 IPC against the respondents. The complainant also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. The revision filed by the complainant against the said order of dismissal of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.was also dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court on 20.02.2016.
3. The complainant to prove her allegations has examined herself as CW1. No other witness was examined by the complainant. The Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 2 of 8 on the point of summoning has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
4. The complainant being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present revision petition. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the factual position and the testimony of the witness was also ignored. That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the order erroneously and without considering the status report filed by he concerned Investigating Officer. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prime facie offence punishable under Section 323/327/331/341/342/ 506/120B/34 IPC was made out. It is prayed that in view of the grounds of the revision petition, the order of Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set aside.
5. The notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents. The respondents put the appearance through their counsel and strongly opposed the present revision petition.
6. I have carefully perused the material on record and gone UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 3 of 8 through the submissions made by Sh. Avinash Kumar Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Sh. Sudershan Joon, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.
7. The present revision petition was filed by the complainant alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 323/327/331/341/342/506/ 120B/34 IPC. The complainant to prove her allegations has examined herself as CW1. The testimony of the complainant (CW1) needs to be reproduced, which reads as under: "CW1: Statement of Ms. Sumsu Nisha W/o Late Sh. Jamil Ahmed, R/o 499/1, Ramgarh Colony, Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
ON S A I am a tenant of one Sh. Ved Prakash. Brother of Ved Prakash i.e. Ram Singh @ Rame, Vinod and Satish pressurized me to leave the tenancy of Ved Prakash or otherwise they would kill me. They have closed my way, now if I have to go from their house they fight with me on daily basis. Three of my daughters are unmarried, they live in my house. One day whey I was not at home, son of accused Vinod namely Umang tried to fight (hathapai) with my daughters. They do not allow me to have a electricity connection. They do not allow me to take a electricity connection from a neighbor. I want them to remove the wall and give me the passage. I do not UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 4 of 8 want anything else. I have nothing else to say I do not remember when they built the wall, however, it was built three years ago. I have mentioned the date in my complaint. I have made complaints to the police regarding the act of the accused persons. The complaint made to SHO, PS Moti Nagar dated 30.05.2016 is hereby exhibited as Ex. CW1/A and the one made to Deputy Commissioner of Police is hereby exhibited as Ex. CW1/B. Copy of the complaint dated 05.05.2014 and 18.01.2014 made to the SHO are hereby marked as Mark X1 and X2".
8. The complainant has not examined any other witness except herself. No other evidence is on record. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Ld. Trial Court has fails to consider the status report filed by the Investigating Officer. On this issue, it is pertinent to mention that at the time of passing of the order on the point of summoning, the court has to consider the complaint and the evidence produced on record. The status report filed by the Investigating Officer is neither the complaint nor the evidence, unless the said status report is proved according to provision of Indian Evidence Act. This contention raised by the Ld. UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 5 of 8 Counsel for the revisionist is not tenable in the eyes of law.
9. The Ld. Trial Court in para no. 7 of the impugned order has given the cogent reason which makes the testimony of complainant unreliable. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out anything material to take a different view as taken by the Ld. Trial Court. The revisionist has failed to disclose any justifiable grounds sustainable in the eyes of law for interference with the impugned order dated 12.08.2016.
10. It is well settled law that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The Ld. Trial Court has passed the cogent order, dealing with all the contentions raised by the revisionist/complainant. The Ld. Trial Court was absolutely justified in declining the summoning of the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 6 of 8
11. I have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein it was observed: "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he hs applied his mind to the facts of he case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinies the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused".
12. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly applied the ratio of judgment (Supra) on the fact of the present case. In view of the UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 7 of 8 above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence led by the complainant does not fulfill the necessary ingredient of the commission of the alleged offences. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The revision filed by the revisionist against the order dated 12.08.2016 is dismissed.
13. The revision file be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
14. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 20th July, 2017 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI UID No.56369/2016 Sumsu Nissa Vs Ram Singh Etc. 8 of 8