Delhi District Court
Ramesh Mehta vs Smt. Geeta Mehta on 4 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH REETESH SINGH: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-2 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.65/2020
In the matter of
Ramesh Mehta
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Mehta
R/o 2/1-A, East Azad Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
............... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Smt. Geeta Mehta
W/o Sh. Ramesh Mehta,
R/o 2/1-A, East Azad Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chaturbhuj
R/o I-86, Gali no.4, Hari Nagar Extn.,
Jaitpur Meethapur, Badarpur, Delhi
3. Sh. Shiv Prasad
S/o not known
4. Smt. Simmi
W/o Sh. Shiv Prasad
Address of respondent no.3&4, R/o B-389,
Sector17, Rohini, Delhi
5. Sh. Lala S/o Not known
Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 1/8
6. Smt. Mona W/o Sh. Lala
7. Smt. Ramkali
W/o Late Chaturbhuj
Address of respondent no. 5,6&7, R/o 152,
Part III, Gali no.5, Jaipur
Meethapur, Badarpur, Delhi.
................. Respondents
Date of institution : 29.02.2020
Final arguments : 02.03.2021
Date of order : 04.03.2021
ORDER
04.03.2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Ramesh Mehta under section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 by which the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) dismissed the complaint of the petitioner against the respondents.
2. Notice of the revision petition was directed to be issued by order dated 29.02.2020. Vide order dated 12.10.2020 it was recorded that notice of the revision petition was served on all the respondents and they were directed to file reply to the revision petition. Reply/objections to the revision petition was filed by the respondents on 25.11.2020 through Mr. Manoj Tyagi and Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocates for the respondents. Since 25.11.2020, none appeared on behalf of respondents. By order dt.03.02.2021 Court notice was directed to be issued to the Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 2/8 respondents to inform them about the pendency of the revision petition and the matter was adjourned for 02.03.2021. Despite service of the court notices, none appeared on behalf of respondents on 02.03.2021 and arguments on behalf of the petitioner were addressed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. The Reply/objections filed by the respondents were perused by this court.
2. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that the Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that the complaint case of the petitioner was at a very initial stage i.e. at the stage of summoning. At that stage the Ld. MM was only required to assess whether there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons in the light of the material available. He submitted that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate MM went deep into the pre-summoning evidence led by the petitioner with a view to assess whether a finding of guilt could be returned. He submitted that the petitioner had examined himself and his son on oath and had also summoned the relevant record regarding DD entry of the complaint and the MLC of his daughter which were sufficient to proceed against the accused persons. He submitted that Ld. MM failed to appreciate that there is no requirement of any external injury to occur to attract the offence under section 323 of the IPC.
3. On the other hand, in the reply to the revision petition filed by the respondents it has been submitted that petitioner is only misusing the process of law to wreak vengeance on the accused persons, who are the wife and relatives of the wife of the petitioner / complainant. It is submitted that the MLC of Kumari Tanya, daughter of the petitioner and respondent number 1, recorded 'no fresh injury'. No MLC of the petitioner or his son were brought on record. Thus there was no medical evidence produced by the petitioner to corroborate the allegations Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 3/8 of assault or injuries suffered by anyone. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the Ld. MM has rightly looked into the material produced by the petitioner found that same to be insufficient to proceed further.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. I have carefully gone through the reply filed by the respondents and have perused on record of Ld. Trial Court.
5. Before proceeding further, the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the degree of satisfaction to be arrived at and approach to be followed at the stage of section 203 of the CrPC ought to be noticed. In the case of Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary reported in (2010) 7 SCC 578 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under: -:
"18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay3, Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar4, Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose5, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B.6, Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan7, Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh8 and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.9
19. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose5, it was held that where there was prima facie evidence, the Magistrate was bound to issue process and even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter has to be left to be decided by an appropriate forum at an appropriate stage. It was further held that the issue of process can be refused only when the Magistrate finds that the Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 4/8 evidence led by the complainant is self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy.
20. In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan7, this Court examined the scheme of Sections 200 to 204 and held: (SCC p. 503, para 10) "10. ... At the stage of Sections 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges."
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh8 in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code . To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry.""
Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 5/86. In the present case, CC No. 45692/2016 was filed by the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court on or about 23.10.2015. In the same the petitioner has stated that he was residing with his daughter Kumari Tanya and son Master Aryan. He did not have good relations with his wife Smt. Geeta Mehta, accused no.1, who was also residing in the same house. Accused no.2 to accused no.7 are the relatives of accused no.1. It is stated in the complaint that on 27.09.2015 a quarrel took place between the accused no.1 and the petitioner and his children after which the accused no.1 went to the house of her brother, accused no.2. Accused no.1 thereafter came back with the other accused persons, forcibly entered the house of the petitioner and beat up the petitioner, his son and his daughter. The incident was reported to the police and daughter of the petitioner was medically examined. As the police failed to register any FIR, the petitioner filed the above mentioned complaint before the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 21.01.2016 rejected the application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for directing registration of an FIR on the ground that all facts and evidence are within the knowledge and reach of the complainant. The complainant was permitted to lead pre-summoning evidence.
7. The petitioner /complainant examined himself as CW1 and his son Aryan Mehta as CW2. Record of DD number 27B PS Krishna Nagar lodged on the complaint of Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya, daughter of the petitioner was produced by HC Ashwani CW2. Record of MLC of Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya was produced by Manu Gautam CW3 from SDN hospital. The statements of CW1 and CW4 reveal that both have deposed as per the complaint to the effect that a quarrel had taken place between the petitioner and the accused no.1 after which the Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 6/8 accused no.1 went away and came back with the accused persons who fought with the petitioner and all of them beat up the petitioner, his son and his daughter. Ex. CW1/1 is a written complaint of Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya regarding the incident addressed to SHO PS Krishna Nagar. Ex. CW3/1 is an MLC of Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya which records history of physical assault but 'no fresh injury'.
8. The Ld. Trial Court by the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 has dismissed the complaint holding that the offences under sections 452/323/506(II)/34 of the IPC were not made out on the grounds that - CW1 had alleged that the accused had beaten him, his son and his daughter but CW4 did not depose that he i.e. CW4 was also beaten up; there is no MLC of CW1 and CW4; MLC of Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya did not reveal any injury; that as per CW4 his sister had gone to the hospital and told the doctor about suffering pain but the same was not recorded but this statement could not be relied upon as CW4 did not state that he had accompanied his sister to the hospital and that Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya was not examined as a witness; the doctor who examined Kumari Tanya @ Aishwariya was not examined as a witness. The Ld. Trial Court was of the view that in these circumstances the allegations of the complainant appeared to be "suspect".
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary (supra) was pleased to reiterate that the expression "sufficient ground" in section 203 of the Cr.P.C cannot be construed as sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction; process can be refused only when the Magistrate finds that the evidence led by the complainant is self contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy; at this stage the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 7/8 the trial court and the standard to be adopted at this stage is not the same which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing of charges; the enquiry at this stage cannot partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued; question whether evidence is sufficient for supporting conviction can be determined only at the trial.
10. In the present case, the impugned order reveals that the Ld. MM has weighed the pre-summoning evidence of the petitioner in a manner not contemplated at the stage. In the opinion of this court, the material placed on record by the petitioner at the pre-summoning stage was sufficient for process being issued to the respondents in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary (supra).
11. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with a direction to Ld. MM to issue process to the respondents under section 203 of the Cr.P.C and to proceed further with the complaint of the petitioner as per law.
12. It is clarified that the above discussion is only for the purposes of adjudication of the present revision petition.
13. File be consigned to record room.
(Reetesh Singh) ASJ-2/KKD/East/04.03.2021 Announced in open court on 04.03.2021 Ramesh Mehta Vs. Geeta Mehta & Ors Page 8/8