Delhi District Court
Sandeep Malhotra vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 26 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA No.08/2014
Sandeep Malhotra,
S/o Sh. Amarjeet Malhotra,
R/o 1/6896, East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032. .....Appellant.
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi). .....Respondent.
Date of arguments : 25.07.2014.
Date of judgment : 26.07.2014.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Sandeep Malhotra for setting aside the order u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C dated 11.06.2014 passed by Ld. S.E.M. (North East District), Seelampur, Delhi in Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C PS Shahdara titled as State Vs. Sandeep, DD No.54B dated 01.03.2014, whereby, on pleading guilty by the appellant, he was bound down for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.10,000/ for maintaining peace and good behaviour.
2. SHO PS Shahdara, Delhi had sent up a Kalendra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C against Sandeep Malhotra (appellant herein) with the allegations that on receipt of DD No.21A, ASI Lokesh Kumar alongwith Ct. Amit reached at the spot i.e. 1/9424, West Rohtash Nagar, Delhi, where one girl namely Simranjeet Kaur CA No.08/2014 Page no.1 of pages 5 met him and got recorded her statement wherein she alleged that "she was going for tuition at gali no.7 from her house at gali no.4 and when she reached near the tuition centre, one Wagan R car, being driven by Sandeep Malhotra, came near to her and said Sandeep Malhotra threatened to kill her and also stated that if she will go for evidence in court, he will throw acid on her. At that time he was under aggression and thereafter, he fled away from there." ASI Lokesh Kumar alongwith Ct. Amit apprehended the accused Sandeep Malhotra from his house at 1/6869, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and arrested him U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C and information regarding the same was given to his father. Thereafter, he was produced before Ld. S.E.M (NE), Seelampur, Delhi and Ld. S.E.M (NE), Seelampur, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2014 bound down the appellant for a period of six months in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ for keeping peace and good behaviour, which is being assailed by the appellant on various grounds as mentioned in the appeal itself.
3. I have carefully heard the rival submissions made before me. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly, the impugned order, record of the Court of Ld. SEM(NE), contents of the appeal specially the grounds taken therein.
4. As per submissions of Ld. counsel for appellant Ld. Trial Court recorded the plea of guilt of appellant/accused without explaining him the contents of the said paper which was handed over to him to sign on the same. Further the appellant never wanted to plead guilty in the said case and he always wanted to contest the case on merits as after the filing of the charge sheet/ challan before the Court, after the arrest by police, he was produced before the Trial Court and there the court asked him as to whether he wanted to plead guilty, to which he refused CA No.08/2014 Page no.2 of pages 5 and so he was sent to Jail on 01.03.2014 and was released on 03.03.2014. Had he wanted to plead guilty in the above noted case, then he would have pleaded guilty then and there and would have been released on the same day i.e. on 01.03.2014. The appellant/accused always wanted to contest the said case on merits and in the given circumstances, the guilt recorded before the Court is unsustainable being improper and irregular. Further upon the same facts, the appellant has filed a criminal complaint case U/s 200 Cr.P.C against the complainant and the same is pending in the court of Ms. Savitri, Ld. MM, KKD Courts, Delhi. The complainant has also filed two other criminal cases against the applicant/accused and the same are being also contested by the accused. Hence there was no question of the appellant to plead guilty before the court in the above noted cases. Further the appellant had also filed an application dated 05.07.2014 before Ld. Trial Court/Ld. S.E.M, Seelampur for cancellation/withdrawal of the plea of guilt recorded and for withdrawal of the order dated 11.06.2014 but Ld. Trial Court turned down the said prayer. Further at the time of obtaining the signatures of the appellant on printed paper, Ld. Trial Court did not announce in the open court that he was going to be bound down and he was not told anything about the same. The case is false and there is no independent public witness joined in the investigation despite of the fact that the person, who was running tuition centre, where both appellant and said Simran were studying, could have been easily available there. Per contra, it is urged by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no irregularity or defect in the impugned order as the proceedings u/s 107/15 Cr. P. C are not an independent criminal offence, rather, these are the preventing proceedings to maintain public peace in the locality and it is not disputed that the litigation/disputes are going on between the appellant and CA No.08/2014 Page no.3 of pages 5 complainant in other courts also. Since the appellant was threatening the complainant and was disturbing the public peace in the locality, so impugned order was passed rightly. The appellant was merely bound down to maintain public peace in the locality through the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr. P. C that too for the period of six months.
5. After giving due thought to the aforesaid submissions, I have come to the considered opinion that the revision petition as filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits as the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C are not an independent criminal offence, rather, these are the preventing proceedings to maintain and secure the peace and public tranquility in the locality. Since as per allegations levelled, the appellant was threatening the complainant and disturbing the public peace in the locality and by the said act there was an apprehension of breach of peace in the vicinity, so the impugned order was rightly passed and appellant was bound down to maintain public peace in the locality through the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the appellant had himself admitted his guilt before the Ld. SEM (NE) and therefore, the pleas as raised by the appellant in the appeal are appearing to be sham and afterthought and thus the instant appeal as filed is liable to fail. Same stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Copy of judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
7. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court on 26th July, 2014) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CA No.08/2014 Page no.4 of pages 5
CA No.08/2014
Sandeep Malhotra Vs. The State
26.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for appellant with appellant.
Sh. Dharam Chand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Vide a separate judgment, appeal of the appellant stands dismissed.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR)
ASJ02 (NE) :KKD: DELHI
26.07.2014
CA No.08/2014 Page no.5 of pages 5