Delhi District Court
Suman Bala vs State Nct Of Delhi on 22 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLNT01-004665-2022
Crl. Revision No.137/2022
Suman Bala,
W/o Late Naresh Kumar,
R/o B-184, Sector-71, NOIDA,
Goutam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh. ........Revisionist
Versus
1. State NCT of Delhi
2. Partap Singh
S/o Sh. Maha Singh,
R/o H. No.332, Sisodiya Pana,
Village Bhatkawarpur,
Delhi-110036.
3. Ajay Rana,
S/o Ram Singh Rana,
R/o H. No.332, Sisodiya Pana,
Village Bhatkawarpur,
Delhi-110036. .......Respondents
AND CNR No.DLNT01-005355-2022 Crl. Revision No.161/2022 State NCT of Delhi Through Additional Public Prosecutor ........Revisionist Versus Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 1 of14
1. Partap Singh S/o Sh. Maha Singh,
2. Ajay Rana, S/o Ram Singh Rana, Both R/o H. No.332, Sisodiya Pana, Village Bhaktawarpur, Delhi-110036. ....Respondents Date of filing of Criminal Revision by the : 27.05.2022 complainant Suman Bala Date of filing of Criminal Revision by the State Through ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor : 10.06.2022 Date on which arguments were heard on both the revision petition : 21.08.2023 Date of pronouncement of order on revision petition : 22.08.2023 ORDER ON BOTH THE REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.04.2022 PASSED BY LD. MM-01, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI IN CASE TITLED AS 'STATE VS. PARTAP SINGH & ORS.' FIR NO.332/2017 PS ALIPUR, DELHI BEING FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND ANOTHER CRIMINAL REVISION BEING FILED BY THE STATE THROUGH LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WHEREBY THE LD. MM HAS DISCHARGED BOTH THE ACCUSED PERSONS.
1. Vide this common order, I shall decide the two revision petitions being filed by the revisionist/complainant and another Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 2 of14 revision petition being filed by the State through Addl. Public Prosecutor against the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 passed by ld. MM-01, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the ld. MM has discharged both the respondents/accused persons.
2. That, aggrieved against the said order, these two revision petitions have been filed by the complainant and another is being filed by the State through ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and to decide both the revision petitions, the brief material facts are that an undated typed complaint was given by the complainant / revisionist in PS Alipur on dated 27.07.2017 as there were the allegations of outraged the modesty of the complainant against both the respondents herein and the FIR No.332/17 dated 18.08.2017 u/s 354/354A/506/509/34 IPC PS Alipur was registered against both the accused. Investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet against both the respondents has been filed by the IO in the court for trial. Arguments on the point of charge were advanced by the ld. Counsel for the respective parties before the ld. Trial court and vide order dated 04.04.2022, ld. Trial court was pleased to discharge both the respondents/accused with the observation that no prima facie case is made out for the offence punishable u/s 354/354A IPC and aggrieved against the said order of discharge, these two revision petitions were filed. The grounds of filing the revision petition are as under :-
a) That, the impugned order passed by the ld. MM is against Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 3 of14 the facts and material placed on record and the same is not sustainable.
b) That, the impugned order passed by ld. MM is based upon the conjectures and surmises and the ld. Trial court has also failed to appreciate the fact that as per the circumstances and incident, both the accused were involved in the commission of offence and the complainant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury on account of discharge of accused persons in the present case.
That, the grounds taken in the revision petition being filed by the State through ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor are that :-
a) That, the ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that it has been specifically alleged by the complainant that since the death of her husband on 04.10.2016, the behaviour of the accused has changed towards her and he started showing an evil eye towards her and he did obscene behaviour by urinating in front of her and used unhealthy language "mera palla apne ser per kerlo rat badia kat jaaengi"
b) That, the ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that it has been alleged by the complainant in her complaint and statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that when complainant visited the matrimonial house on 20.04.2017 at Village Bakhtawarpur, accused person/respondents came in drunken condition, accused Ajay Rana caught hold the complainant from backside, Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 4 of14 accused respondent no.2 Pratap Singh pulled the saree of the complainant and accused Ajay Rana also tried to tear the blouse of the complainant and both the accused persons outraged the modesty of the complainant.
c) That, the ld. Trial court has also failed to appreciate that it has been specifically alleged by the complainant in her complaint that respondent no.2 Pratap Singh threatened the complainant to ruin her reputation in such a manner that "ke complainant apne muh nahe dikha payege"
3. By way of both these revision petitions, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 in FIR No.332/17 u/s 354/354A IPC 'State Vs. Partap Singh & Anr.' whereby both the accused were discharged, may kindly be set aside.
4. The arguments were heard on both these revision petitions advanced by ld. Counsel for the revisionist/complainant and ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor of the State as well as ld. Counsel for both the respondents/accused and file has been perused.
5. Having heard the submissions made by ld. counsel for the revisionist, ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as ld. Counsel for both the respondents/accused and after gone through the averments of both the revision petitions and after gone through the trial court record as well as the impugned Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 5 of14 order dated 04.04.2022, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order is pertaining to the FIR no.332/17 u/s 354/354A/506/509/34 IPC PS Alipur whereby both the respondents/accused were discharged by the ld. Trial court.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the revisionist /complainant is the wife of real brother of one of the respondent/accused Pratap Singh and a written typed undated complaint was filed by the complainant in the Police Station Alipur with the allegation that she is residing at the given address. Her husband died on 04.10.2016 due to heart attack. No postmortem was conducted and after taking no objection from family members, the cremation of her husband was done in their native village Bakhtawarpur, Delhi. Soon after the death of her husband namely Naresh, Pratap Singh, who is the elder brother of deceased husband of the complainant changed his behaviour towards the complainant and started to show evil eyes and unhealthy attitude towards her. It became the habit of Pratap Singh to do quarrel and used obscene act (urinate in front of me) and unhealthy language (mera palla apne ser per kerlo rat badiya kat jaaengi) and she always tried to persuade Pratap Singh to live with calm and peace. On dated 20.04.2017 when she visited at her matrimonial village Bakhtawarpur to find a suitable tenant for her shops which were left vacant after the death of her husband, the Pratap Singh threatened her not to Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 6 of14 enter in village and on the same evening, Pratap Singh and his son-in-law namely Ajay Rana were in drunken and tried to physically assault her and caught hold from her backside and outraged her modesty but any how, she managed to save herself. Both Pratap and Ajay Rana threatened her that one day, they will grab her entire property. No complaint was made by the complainant to save the reputation of the family but a Family Panchayat was called and both Pratap Singh and Ajay Rana were scolded by the Panchayat members and were ashamed of their conduct and feel apologized. Thereafter, for taking revenge of their insult in panchayat, they conspired each other and at the instance of Ajay Rana, Pratap Singh had filed a false criminal complaint against her with intention to harass and to defame her. On this complaint, the FIR was registered and investigation was carried out and during the course of investigation, it reveals that a typed undated complaint in Hindi of dated 25.07.2017 was filed by respondent/accused namely Pratap Singh in PS Alipur and in the said typed complaint, it has been mentioned that the complainant Pratap Singh and his wife Bhanwar Kali are senior citizens and used to reside at H. No.332, Village Bakhtawarpur, Delhi. There are four other brothers and three sisters of complainant and at about 5-6 months before, his younger brother Naresh who used to reside at NOIDA, U.P. was died and his death is due to some conspiracy and truth of the same has not been revealed till date.
Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 7 of14 After the death of Sh. Naresh, he had taken all the responsibilities of the wife of his deceased brother and two children Gulshan Kumar aged about 21 years and Gaurav aged about 19 years but the wife of Late Naresh is having illicit relations with Rajesh @ Dimple. The dead body of his brother Naresh was found in Ghaziabad but Rajesh @ Dimple and Suman (complainant) did not allow to get the postmortem of the dead body nor disclosed the cause of death and Rajesh @ Dimple also want to kill him and on dated 23.04.2017, the complainant and her two children visited the village to cast their vote and two other unknown goons were also came with them. Rajesh @ Dimple was carried a country made pistol in his hand. The complainant Suman had thrown a brick on the door of his house and started to abuse and all of them forcibly entered into their house and on hearing the noise, the neighbourers were gathered and because of fear, the complainant Pratap Singh with his wife hide themselves in their house and after seeing the neighbour persons, they both came out from their house and at that time, Rajesh @ Dimple who was having a country made pistol in his hand threatened him that he will kill him today. The complainant Suman pushed his wife and threatened to kill the old aged lady that if this old man made any complaint against them, then, she will torn her clothes and will implicate Pratap Singh in a false rape case but because of the intervention of the other villagers, they could not Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 8 of14 succeed.
7. It has also been stated in the said Hindi typed complaint that he is a heart patient and her wife is also cancer patient and they do not have any child and all these persons wanted to grab his land/property. Suman and her children had tried to get his sign forcibly on the blank papers and to grab the property of the complainant, Suman in connivance with Rajesh @ Dimple and her two children entered into a conspiracy and if any misfortunate incident happened with him and his wife, then, these all persons are responsible but the police did not take any action on this complaint of Pratap Singh and no FIR has been registered.
8. It is worth mentioning that since Pratap Singh has made a complaint against Suman and other persons but no action has been taken and thereafter, an undated typed complaint was made by the complainant/revisionist on dated 27.07.2017 to SHO PS Alipur and in the said typed complaint, it has been alleged that after the death of her husband Sh. Naresh, his elder brother Pratap Singh changed his behaviour and started to show evil eyes and unhealthy attitude towards her and it became the habit of Pratap Singh to use obscene act (urinate in front of me) and unhealthy language (mera palla apne ser per kerlo rat badiya kat jaaengi) and on dated 20.04.2017 when she Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 9 of14 visited at her matrimonial village Bakhtawarpur to find a suitable tenant for her shops which were left vacant after the death of her husband, the Pratap Singh (elder brother of her husband) threatened her not to enter in village and on the same evening, Pratap Singh and his son-in-law namely Ajay Rana were in drunken and tried to physically assault her and caught hold from her backside and outraged her modesty. After making this complaint to the SHO PS Alipur, the FIR was registered u/s 354/354A IPC and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded wherein she had improved her statement and in the said statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that on dated 20.04.2017, she visited her native Village Bakhtawarpur and on the said date, the said Pratap Singh and Ajay Rana came to her in drunken condition when she was alone and she was caught hold by Ajay Rana from back and Pratap pulled her saree and accused Ajay tried to tear her blouse and both these allegations were not mentioned in the complaint made initially to the police. It appears that it is an after thought statement of the complainant and the allegations were made to make the offence of more grave nature.
9. It is worth mentioning that before making a complaint to the police on dated 27.07.2017, a legal notice dated 24.07.2017 was served upon the accused Pratap Singh and vide that notice, the said accused Pratap Singh was called upon to pay Rs.48 Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 10 of14 lakhs within a period of 15 days from receipt of legal notice to defame the complainant. Perusal of undated type complaint addressed by the complainant to SHO PS Alipur reveals that the alleged incident is of 20.04.2017 and no complaint was made by the said complainant to the police on 20.04.2017. Even 100 number call was not made by the complainant to the police and the complaint was made on 27.07.2017 i.e. after served upon the legal notice by the complainant to the accused Pratap Singh and there is an inordinate delay by the complainant to file the complaint against accused persons. Time and again, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of judgments, it has been held that to settle the personal score between the parties, there is an alarming increase of cases u/s 354/354A IPC only to use it against the persons and to make them agree to fulfill the demand of complainant. The initial complaint was made to the police by accused Pratap Singh against complainant in FIR No.332/17 PS Alipur was on dated 25.04.2017 and police did not take any action on the said complaint of accused Pratap Singh and thereafter, a legal notice dated 24.07.2017 was served upon by the complainant against accused Pratap Singh and thereafter, a written typed complaint was made by the complainant against the accused to SHO PS Alipur on 27.07.2017 and it appears that legal notice of dated 24.07.2017 and the complaint made to the SHO PS Alipur of dated 27.07.2017 are the counter blast of the complaint made Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 11 of14 by the accused against the complainant in PS Alipur dated 25.04.2017.
10. Ld. APP for the State in another revision petition which was filed by the State through ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, it has been argued that in a case of 'B.C. Upreti & Anr. Vs. State & Anr' Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decided on 16.07.2015 has held that:-
"While framing charge a magistrate is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case, keeping in view the essential ingredients of the offence for which the accused is sought to be charged. The obligation to discharge the accused under section 239 arises when the magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. The real test for determining whether the charge is groundless is to find out that the materials available on record, even if unrebutted, would not make out any case whatsoever. The word "groundless" means without any basis or foundation. Where there is even a suspicion about commission of offence, the charge cannot be stated as groundless.
It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charges, no roving enquiry is to be made nor the pros and cons of the materials could be weighed in detail as it would tantamount to a mini trial and such is not in the scheme of the code. The reason for this is that the prosecution ought to be allowed to bring its evidence at the trial and the case ought not to be shut out at the threshold when there is reasonable material for holding trial.
The absence of details regarding the date time and manner of occurrence do not make out a case for discharge"
11. Ld. APP for the State has argued that as per the law laid down Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 12 of14 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the order of discharge of both the accused may kindly be set aside. The arguments of ld. APP for the State is immaterial and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, the case law which was relied upon of ''B.C. Upreti & Anr. Vs. State & Anr'; of Delhi High Court does not support the arguments of ld. APP for the State inasmuch as the fact as narrated in the said case law is entirely different with the facts as mentioned in the present case.
12. There are material contradictions in the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint made to the police on dated 27.07.2017 and the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. made by her before ld. Magistrate and the court is bound down to consider the material contradictions and the same cannot be ignored. Had it been any allegations of outraging the modesty of complainant, then, she ought to have mentioned the same in the complaint made to the police on 20.04.2017, the day of the alleged incident but she did not make any complaint to the Police and she served upon the legal notice dated 24.07.2017 whereby she had stated through said legal notice that the accused is liable to pay Rs.48 lakhs to malign her reputation.
13. It appears that the main dispute is of property between the parties and to settle the personal score, a complaint was made by the complainant to the police with the allegations that her Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 13 of14 modesty had been outraged by the accused persons and on the ground of mere suspension, the charge cannot be framed. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, this court has no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the ld. Trial court and the same is completely justified and legal order. There is no merit in both the revision petition one being filed by the complainant and the other being filed by the State through ld. APP for the State. Therefore, both the revision petition are hereby stands dismissed.
14. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial court for their record.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Satish Kumar) on 22.08.2023 Addl. Sessions Judge-03, (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Crl. Revision No.137/2022 & Crl. Revision No.161/2022 Suman Bala Vs. State State Vs. Pratap Singh Page No. 14 of14