Delhi District Court
Sh. Shakir vs The State on 15 September, 2007
In the Court of Sh. A.K. Chawla, Additional Sessions Judge : Delhi Cr. Revision No. 28/2007 Sh. Shakir S/o Mohd. Majhar, R/o K-486, Gali No.7/4, Gautam Vihar, Delhi-110053. .....Petitioner. Versus The State NCT Delhi. .....Respondent.
Judgment Vide this judgment, I proceed to dispose of the revision preferred against order dated 04.08.2007 passed by the Ld. MM, hereinafter referred to as the impugned order.
2. Precisely, the case of the revisionist that his deceased father-Mohd. Majhar had filed a complaint dated 13.12.2004 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. read with section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. ACMM for summoing, trying and punishing the respondents therein for the commission of offences u/s 364/342/120B IPC, as he apprehended his son having been killed in a false encounter by the police of PS New Usman Pur or having been kept somewhere by the said respondents. Since after seeking the status report from the police, the statement of the complainant was recorded but before the arguments could be heard, the complainant died. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. MM dismissed the complaint in default and for non- prosecution. Aggrieved thereof, the revisionist has preferred the instant revision.
3. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the revisionist and ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record carefully.
14. Revisionist is none else but the son of the complainant, apprehending to whom to have been killed in the false encounter by the police or having been kept somewhere, the complaint came to be filed. Trial court record shows that the complaint was filed on 15.12.2004 and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 22.12.2004 and thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on 13.01.2005. On 13.01.2005, the counsel for the complainant informed for the complainant having expired and the matter thereby, was adjourned for 08.04.2005 for further proceedings. On 08.04.2005, the revisionist himself is shown to have appeared before the Trial Court and having again reported for his father having expired on 01.01.2005. Since thereafter, the Trial Court has been adjourning the matter from time to time, while the revisionist has been appearing off and on and it is only on 04.08.2007, when none appeared for the complainant nor any other steps for the prosecution of the complaint came to be made, the Ld. MM dismissed the complaint, vide the impugned order. On being queried as to what survived in the complaint, when the revisionist, who was apprehended to have been killed in a false encounter by the police or kept somewhere, has been freely appearing before the Ld. MM, without making any grievance, in which context the complaint was filed, both the revisionist and his counsel failed to respond and did not point out anything. The Ld. MM ofcourse, was not to keep the matter alive to the sweet discretion of the revisionist. In totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not see any incorrectness or ilegality in the impugned order.
5. In view of the aforegoing, the revision is dismissed being meritless.
Announced in the open court A.K. Chawla
On 15.09.2007 Additional Sessions Judge,
Karkardooma, Delhi.
2