Delhi District Court
Madan Lal Suryawanshi vs . Shahrukh Pasi And Ors. on 25 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 16/2014
Madan Lal Suryawanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi and Ors.
25.01.2014
MR. MADAN LAL SURYAWANSHI,
W/o SH. SANTOSH KUMAR ........Revisionist/Complainant
Versus
1. SH. SHAHRUKH PASI,
AUTHORIZED DEALER OF M/S. PASCOS,
OFF. 1/23B, ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI110002
2. M/S. TATA MOTORS LTD.,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON,
11/3, MAIN MATHURA ROAD, BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI110044
3. SH. AVTAR SINGH JOHAR,
JOHAR MOTORS,
(TATA MOTORS AUTHORIZED SERVICE STATION)
MAIN ROAD BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI110044
4. SH. SANDEEP BARVE,
COMMERCIAL MANAGER (VEHICLES)
ICICI BANK LTD.
BLOCK E1, VIDEOCON TOWER,
JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI110055.
5. SH. ASHOK ARORA,
THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2 & 3, CENTRAL MARKET,
Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors. 1/6
1st FLOOR, WEST PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI110026 ................Respondents/Accused
Date of institution : 23.02.2013
Date of reserve for order : 24.01.2014
Date of order : 25.01.2014
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose of this criminal revision which has been preferred by the complainant/revisionist against the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 passed by Sh. Sachin Sangwan, Learned M.M05 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in complaint case no. 859/1/09 whereby application for exemption of accused no. 1 has been allowed and notice of accusation has been served to accused nos. 1, 3 and 5 to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that complainant/revisionist filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before Learned Trial Court wherein he (complainant/revisionist) had stated that on pursuance of an advertisement, he approached the accused for purchase of a vehicle on discount and offers as mentioned in the advertisement. The complainant was not given rate of discount as well as the offers advertised in the advertisement; the delivery of the vehicle was also belatedly given sans rate of discount and gifts offered as per the advertisement. Complainant/revisionist has further alleged that vehicle was a second hand vehicle and it broke down frequently, due to which he had to suffer irreparable loss in his business. When the complainant/revisionist approached the accused, he was threatened with dire consequences and his being implicated by the accused in false cases. Thereafter, the complainant/revisionist made complaint to the police officials, but no action was taken by the police. On a subsequent date, the vehicle of the complainant/revisionist was forcibly taken and the driver was beaten and kidnapped. In this regard, FIR was lodged in PS: Punjabi Bagh, but the police did not investigate the case properly and registered the case under Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors. 2/6 minor offences.
The Learned Trial Court after calling for the status report and examining the complainant dismissed the complaint vide order dated 28.11.2006, which was challenged by the complainant/revisionist by preferring a revision petition which was allowed by Learned ASJ vide order dated 19.05.2007 remanding the case back to the Learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court examined the complaint afresh and observed that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons under Section 323/506/34 IPC and directed summoning of the accused persons vide order dated 27.06.2008. During the Course of the trial, complainant/revisionist filed another revision petition on 30.07.2012 challenging the order dated 27.06.2008 of the Learned Trial Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2012 being barred by limitation.
In pursuance to the procedure followed in the trial of the summon cases, notice of the accusation was framed against accused nos. 1, 3 and 5, who were present in the Court on 06.02.2013. Also, vide order of the even date, application under Section 205 & 317 Cr.P.C. for exemption moved by accused no. 1, Mr. Shahrukh Pasi, was adjudicated and allowed. It is this order which is under challenge by way of present revision petition.
I have heard the complainant/revisionist in person who insisted that he will address the arguments in person and respective Counsels for accused nos. 1, 3 and 5.
Learned Trial Court on 27.06.2008 in terms of order of Learned ASJ dated 19.05.2007 opined that a prima facie case under Section 323/506/34 IPC is made out against accused nos. 1, 3 and 5. Perusal of record reveals that the said order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the Learned Trial Court was challenged by the complainant/revisionist by way of revision petition, which was dismissed by the Learned ASJ vide its order dated 22.08.2012 holding that revision petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. Significantly, order of the Learned ASJ has not been challenged by the complainant/revisionist till date.
Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors. 3/6 Section 323 of IPC provides that offence of voluntarily causing hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 506 of IPC provides that offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Section 260 (1) (i) of Cr.P.C. empowers M.M. to try any offence not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for imprisonment for a term exceeding two years in a summary way. Section 260 (1)
(vi) of Cr.P.C. enunciates that criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both can also be tried summarily, as per the discretion of Learned M.M. Learned Trial Court in exercise of its discretion and took recourse to try the case summarily. Accordingly, due procedure of summary trial was followed and notice to accused nos. 1, 3 and 5 was served vide impugned order dated 06.02.2013. The opinion after evaluation of the material on record on the face of it appears to be correctly formed. In my view therefore, the order of Learned Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal and the same is proper and justified.
It is also the contention of the Learned Counsel for accused no. 1 that neither the complaint nor the examination of complainant discloses offence under Section 323 & 506 IPC and resultantly, the accused should be discharged. I am afraid that the arguments of Learned Counsel for accused no. 1 is neither meritorious nor sustainable. No appeal or revision has been filed by accused no. 1 challenging neither the order dated 27.06.2008 nor impugned order dated 06.02.2013.
It has also been urged by the complainant/revisionist that impugned order of the Learned Trial Court dated 06.02.2013 exempting the accused no. 1 from personal appearance on an application moved by him under Section 205 & 317 Cr.P.C is blatantly illegal.
Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors. 4/6 Per contra, it has been contended by Learned Counsel for accused no. 1 that there is no infirmity in the order of Learned Trial Court qua exemption of accused no. 1 and the discretion to exempt accused no. 1 has been rightly exercised. Learned Counsel for accused no. 1 has placed reliance on S. Nihal Singh & Ors. V/s Arjan Dass1985 Cr.L.J. 469 and M/s. Bhaskah Industry Ltd. V/s M/s. Bhawani Denim Apparels Ltd. 2001 Cr.L.J. 4250 SC.
From the case law cited by Learned Counsel for accused no. 1, it emerges that Learned Trial Court had a discretion to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused which has to be exercised judicially keeping in view all the circumstances of the case and the larger interest of justice. The Learned Trial Court dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused observing that "present matter is pending since 2005". It is well settled law that power to dispense with the personal appearance of accused is to be liberally exercised except in criminal cases of serious nature where the offence is punishable with a sentence of long imprisonment. Learned Trial Court can allow the exemption in appropriate cases with a caution to the accused who has to give his undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case and that a Counsel on his behalf would be present in the Court and that he would have no objection in taking evidence in his absence.
Perusal of impugned order of Learned Trial Court dated 06.02.2013 reveals that exemption application of accused was allowed subject to the condition that Counsels mentioned in the application shall appear on each and every date failing which exemption of the accused may be cancelled. It was further clarified by Learned Trial Court in its abovementioned order that accused shall not dispute his identity and he shall not dispute recording of evidence in his absence when his Counsel is present in the Court and that the accused shall appear for his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the date scheduled.
Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors. 5/6 In my considered opinion, the Learned Trial Court judicially examined the application for exemption filed by accused no. 1 and imposed appropriate terms and conditions on accused no. 1, in terms of the settled law.
From the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of Learned Trial Court dated 06.02.2013 and the same is upheld. The revision is therefore dismissed.
Trial Court Record be sent back.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on 25.01.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge05 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors. 6/6