Delhi District Court
I.P. Nangia vs State Of Delhi on 8 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 04/11
Unique case ID No. 0240R0059512011
1. I.P. Nangia
S/o Late Dr. H.K. Nangia
2. Sh. Narottam Nangia
S/o Late Dr.H.K. Nangia
Both R/o.453, Sector14,
Gurgaon (Haryana)
...Revisionists
Versus
1. State of Delhi
2. Sh. K.K. Rao (complainant)
S/o Late Sh. K.K. Rao
R/o AN1 D, Shalimar Bagh
Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of institution of the case: 05/03/11
Arguments heard on: 05/07/11
Date of Decision: 08/07/2011
AND
Criminal Revision No. 07/11
Unique case ID No. 0240R0057782011
1. Sh. Sudershan Nangia
S/o Late Dr. H.K. Nangia
R/o Late Shri H.K. Nangia
R/o C236, Vikas Puri
New Delhi110018
...Revisionists
Versus
1. State of Delhi
.....Respondents
CR No.04/11 & 07/11 1/7
Date of institution of the case: 04/03/11
Arguments heard on: 05/07/11
Date of Decision: 08/07/2011
ORDER
These are revision petitions u/s 397 of Cr.Pc against the order of framing of Charge dated 03/12/10, passed by Ld Trial Court.
The aforesaid order has been challenged by the revisionists I.P. Nangia, Narrotam Nangia and also by revisionist Sudershan Nangia, by filing a separate revision petition.
Both the revision petition shall be disposed vide this common order.
In brief, a complaint was made by one K.K. Rao dated 27/10/95 on which chargesheet was filed against three accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh, Baljeet Singh and Joginder Singh u/s 323/452/506/34 of IPC. Charges against all the three accused persons were framed and during the evidence, PW1 and PW2 were examined.
On the statement of PW2, complainant K.K. Rao, these three revisionists were summoned by Ld Trial Court u/s 319 Cr.PC. The revisionists also preferred revision petition against the summoning order u/s 319 of Cr.PC, but the same was dismissed by Ld ASJ on 11/09/08.
By the impugned order dated 03/12/10, the Ld Trial Court found prima facie case against all the revisionists u/s 323/452/506 of IPC, which has been challenged on various grounds.
Ld counsel for revisionist I.P. Nangia and Narottam Nangia has contended that both the revisionist were not arrayed as the accused persons CR No.04/11 & 07/11 2/7 at the time of filing of chargesheet nor cognizance was taken against them by Ld Trial Court, at the initial stage, so they cannot be summoned u/s 319 of Cr.PC. It is also contended that during investigation it was found that revisionists I.P. Nangia was out of country and the complaint was made to harass him only as the property in question was already sold by revisionist on 21/07/95. It is further contended that no chargsheet was filed against the revisionist and Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that ingredients of none of the offence are attracted in this case and the criminal process is being abused at the instance of the complainant. It is further contended that Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the material placed on record, which in no way suggest that the revisionists were involved in the offence as alleged.
Ld Counsel for revisionist Sudershan Nangia has also contended that the Ld Trial court failed to apply its mind on the facts and law and there was no ground to summon the revisionist Sudershan Nangia u/s 319 Cr.PC for offence as alleged. It is further contended that Ld Trial court failed to appreciate that prima facie offence are not made out on the statement of complainant as deposed and the Ld Trial court did not consider the material brought by revisionist that on the alleged day, he was not present. It is further contended that Ld Trial Court failed to consider the statement of complainant and other witnesses as recorded u/s 161 of Cr.PC, which are contradictory to each other. It is further contended that brother of I.P. Nangia had already sold the property in question to one Baljeet Singh on 24/08/95, hence the revisionist was having no concern whatsoever, in any manner. It is further contended that Ld Trial Court did not appreciate the facts and law, hence the framing of charge be recalled and impugned order dated 03/12/10 be set CR No.04/11 & 07/11 3/7 aside.
I have heard Ld counsels for revisionists and Ld APP for State and also gone through the material placed on record in TCR.
The revisionists never challenged the order of Ld ASJ dated 11/09/08 regarding their summoning u/s 319 Cr.PC, hence the same became final. Now only it is to see as to whether any prima facie case is made out against the revisionists or not. Earlier in complaint Ex.PW2/A, complainant stated regarding the incident of 01/08/95, wherein he had stated that three revisionists with three more gundas forcibly entered in his house and threatened with dire consequences, if he still continue to stay in the house and the same fate will be given as of his father, if he will not vacated the house and he will be killed. He lodged his complaint in PS Shalimar Bagh.
Before the Court, complainant as PW2 deposed the facts regarding the incident of 01/08/95 that all the three revisionists and three accused persons came to his house and attacked him and used filthy language. They abused him and assaulted him. They also threatened him with the same fate as of his father and robbed the house with the cash of Rs.2500/ and took away the receipt of Rs. 51,000/, issued by I.P. Nangia. He lodged the complaint with PS Shalimar Bagh.
No such complaint has been collected regarding the incident of 01/08/95, during investigation, so it cannot be said whether any complaint was given by the complainant R.K. Rao or not. There is no medical examination of complainant to show that he had sustained any injuries in the said incident. Complainant also made improvements from statement Ex.PW2/A and he has nowhere stated that the said complainant was not given by him or CR No.04/11 & 07/11 4/7 something was left therein. So, except entering into the house of revisionist and extending threat to him nothing more has basically alleged by the complainant against the revisionists.
The contention of Ld Counsel for revisionists that the revisionists were not arrayed as accused persons, while filing the chargesheet hence cannot be summoned, is not tenable in any manner as it is held in 2000 CRI.L.J.3977 titled as Bidyadhar Chadei V State of Orissa and Other, that " if a person has been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing his involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court, then, he can legitimately be included as 'an accused' to be proceeded against in accordance with the provision of section 319 of the Code." so the accused persons have been summoned u/s 319 Cr.PC, on the basis of the complaint.
Although the court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage, but certainly the previous material collected and filed by the police as evidence during investigation cannot be overlooked and the complainant has not alleged anywhere that his complaint Ex.PW2/A was incorrect and has not given any reason as to why he did not disclose about the abused, assault or robbery of cash of Rs. 25,00/ and removal of receipt of Rs. 51,000/ issued by the revisionists I.P. Nangia, so there is suspicion in the statement of K.K. Rao in this respect, but prima facie, there is sufficient material in the evidence of complainant K.K. Rao that revisionist I.P. Nanagia and Narottam Nangia alongwith other revisionist Sudershan Nangia and three accused persons entered in his house forcibly and threatened him to kill him on 01/08/95.
CR No.04/11 & 07/11 5/7
Complainant K.K. Rao neither earlier in his complaint Ex.PW2/A nor while deposing before the Court has stated as to which of the accused had caused him beatings. No medical has been produced nor any complaint allegedly made by him has been brought on record. So Prima facie offence u/s 451 and 506 (1) of IPC are made out from the statement of K.K. Rao against the revisionist I.P. Nangia and Narrotam Nangia.
The plea of revisionist Sudershan Nangia is that he was on duty on 01/08/95. In this respect, photocopy issued by Instrumentation Limited (A Government of India Enterprises) has been placed on record, but the same has not been verified in any manner. Accordingly the plea of alibi of revisionist Sudershan Nangia is the matter of defence and same is matter of trial. At this stage, the same cannot be considered.
Complainant has further deposed regarding 17/08/95, about the same six persons and that he was brutally assaulted by them, but no such incident is alleged in Ex.pW2/A. However, regarding the incident dated 11/09/95 in Ex.PW2/A, complainant stated that three gundas came, who had given beatings to him and kicked him. Matter was reported to the police, but before the Court, while deposing as PW2, he has stated that all the revisionists i.e. I.P. Nangia, Narottam Nangia and Sudershan Nangia alongwith three accused came to attack him. The same is also improvement and no reason or explanation has been given by the complainant as to why he did not disclosed these facts previously in his complaint Ex.PW2/A, to the police, so this raised suspicion on the statement of PW2 Sh. K.K. Rao.
In view of the above discussion regarding the incident of 01/08/95, prima facie offence u/s 451/506(I) of IPC are made out against all the three CR No.04/11 & 07/11 6/7 revisionists. Order of Ld Trial Court dated 03/12/10 is modified and all the three revisionists are discharged for offence u/s 323 of IPC. Both the revision petitions are disposed of with the above observations.
TCR be sent back with copy of order to the concerned court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
All the revisionists are directed to appear before the concerned court on 11/07/11.
File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on
dated 8th of July , 2011
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
CR No.04/11 & 07/11 7/7