Delhi District Court
Kaman Kumar Vaid vs The State on 3 March, 2020
In the Court of Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam:
Additional Sessions Judge -(03) (East)
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
Criminal Revision No. 169/2019
Kaman Kumar Vaid
S/o Late Sh. Sahdev Raj
R/o J/ No. B-18, Achrya Niketan
Mayur Vihar Phase I,
Delhi - 110 091
........ Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State
2. Sh. Umashankar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Yograj Sharma
R/o Flat No. 622, Pkt E,
Mayur Vihar, Phase II
Delhi - 110 091
3. Sh. Kiran Pal
S/o Sh. V.R. Kasana
R/o 59-A,Taimoor Nagar,
New Friends Colony,
Delhi
4. Sh. Shiv Charan
S/o Late Ch. Kabool Singh
R/o Village Chilla Saroda
Opp. Shiv Mandir,
Mayur Vihar Phase I,
Delhi - 110 091
.......Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 169/2019 Kaman Kumar Vaid Vs. State etc. Page No. 1 of 6 Arising out of FIR No. 135/2002 PS Pandav Nagar.
Date of Institution : 01.08.2019 Order Reserved on : 25.02.2020 Date of Order : 03.03.2020 Order:
1. Vide the present criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 27.07.2019 passed by ld. trial court whereby ld. trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner moved under Section 319 CrPC.
2. Aggrieved of the said impugned order, revisionist filed the present above mentioned criminal revision petition with the submission that the impugned order dated 27.07.2019 has been passed without appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. Notice of the above mentioned criminal revision petition was issued to the respondents. TCR was also summoned.
4. It is also to be mentioned herein that during the proceedings of the present matter, amended memo of parties filed and same was also taken on record and those respondents also appeared and contested the present matter.
Crl. Rev. No. 169/2019 Kaman Kumar Vaid Vs. State etc. Page No. 2 of 6
5. Petitioner, who himself is an Advocate, argued the matter and contended that impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and fully biased with order dated 04.12.2012 passed earlier in the matter. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that PW-5 during his cross- examination failed to prove about his ownership of the property in question further contending that there is sufficient material on record to summon the respondents as accused persons. Rajesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, Crl.Appeal No. 813 of 2019 decided on 01.5.2019 (Hon'ble Apex Court) and Mohan Wahi Vs. State, 1982 Crl.LJ 2040 have been relied upon by petitioner in support of his contentions.
6. Per contra, respondents no. 2 to 4 vehemently opposed the present criminal revision petition contending that the present criminal revision petition has been filed with ulterior motive only to pressurize the parties concerned.
7. Contention raised by ld. counsel for R-3 and R-4 is that in view of the judgment reported as Ghanshyam Kamble Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. 2010 (2) Criminal Court Cases 63 (Bombay), application moved under Sec. 319 CrPC filed by accused is not maintainable and it is only prerogative of the State to file such application. Taking shelter of case reported as Lal Suraj @ Suraj Sing & Anr. 2009 (2) Crl. Rev. No. 169/2019 Kaman Kumar Vaid Vs. State etc. Page No. 3 of 6 Criminal Court Cases 211 (SC), ld. counsel contended that in a case where the court exercises its jurisdiction under Sec. 319 of the Code, the power has to be exercised on the basis of the fresh evidence brought before the court and prayed for dismissal of the present criminal revision petition with costs.
8. Rival submissions considered and trial court record also perused in view of the law on the issue involved.
9. Sh. Uma Shankar Sharma made a written statement to the police levelling allegations the accused persons including the revisionist and on the basis of the same, an FIR No. 135/2002 under Sec. 447/448/506/34 IPC PS Trilokpuri was registered against accused persons including the revisionist. Chargesheet was filed in the said matter and charge under Se. 451/323/356 read with Sec. 34 IPC and 420/468/471 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC was framed against the accused persons and matter was listed for prosecution evidence and even prosecution witnesses were recorded.
10. During the trial of the said case, accused/revisionist moved an application under Sec. 319 CrPC seeking summoning of the additional accused persons which stood dismissed and aggrieving of the said order passed by ld. trial court revisionist preferred the present criminal revision petition.
Crl. Rev. No. 169/2019 Kaman Kumar Vaid Vs. State etc. Page No. 4 of 6
11. Perusal of the record is clear to the aspect that case of the prosecution is at the stage of prosecution evidence. Even vide order dated 04.12.2012 same application moved by the present revisionist stood dismissed. No criminal revision petition was ever filed against the said impugned, though it is prerogative of the accused. Again though technically different accused again moved an application under Sec. 306 CrPC and said application also stood dismissed. Now, after examination of other witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, accused again moved an application under Sec. 319 CrPC seeking summoning of more persons as accused persons. Said application stood dismissed vide detailed order dated 27.07.2019 and aggrieved of said order, present revisionist moved the present criminal revision petition.
12. Ld. trial court in its impugned order dated 27.07.2019 taking into entire aspects of the case, rightly observed and dismissed the said application. No illegality or perversity is seen in the said impugned order which is to be inferred. Judgments cited by ld. counsels for the respondents are fully applicable to the present case. Citations of revisionists are of no use to the present case as each case to be seen in its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Revisionist has moved the similar applications time and again, even after dismissal of the earlier applications moved by him. Crl. Rev. No. 169/2019 Kaman Kumar Vaid Vs. State etc. Page No. 5 of 6 This seems that petitioner is in the habit of delay tactics.
13. With the above observations, this court is of the view that impugned order dated 27.07.2019 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity and/or error and as such, same stands upheld.
14. With these observations, above mentioned three criminal revision petitions are hereby dismissed as found no merit with costs of rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Shahdara Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund vide saving Account No. 90100100003204 on or before date fixed before ld. trial court.
15. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial on the date fixed before that court at 10 a.m.
16. A copy of this order be placed in TCR and same be sent to court concerned immediately.
17. File of criminal revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open Court on 03rd day of March, 2020 (Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (East) Karkardooma Courts: Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 169/2019 Kaman Kumar Vaid Vs. State etc. Page No. 6 of 6