Delhi District Court
Dr. Jai Chand @ Jai Chand Sharma vs The State Through Sho on 7 December, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR II , ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE 01 : NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0175752010
Criminal Revision No. 16/2010
Assigned to Sessions. 02/07/10
Arguments heard on. 29.11.2010
Date of order. 07/12/10
IN THE MATTER OF :
Dr. Jai Chand @ Jai Chand Sharma
s/o Sh. Harlal, H. No.M56,
Near Jain Mandir, Naveen Shahdara,
c/o Shanti Nursing Home,
Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi110032. .........Revisionist
Versus
The State through SHO, Shahdara.
.....Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. The present revision petition under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed against the order dated 20.05.2010 passed by Ld. SEM, Smt. Nirmal Kaur, North East, Seelampur, Delhi whereby Ld. SEM has bound down the petitioner/revisionist for a period of six months to maintain probe in default he will be liable for the forfeiture of amount of Rs.10,000/. Being aggrieved by this order, revisionist has filed the present revision petition.
2. Before going to the conclusion brief facts of the present revision petition are Criminal Revision No.16/2010 Dr. Jai Chand @ Jai Chand Sharma Vs. State. 1/4 2 that there was some quarrel between petitioner/revisionist and family members of the complainant. It is further stated that uncle of complainant is a politician and under his political influence complainant has created a false and frivolous ground to initiate process u/s 111 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner/revisionist vide complaint dated 23.11.2009 wherein a DD entry bearing No.55B dated 23.11.2009 was registered under the political influence of the uncle of complainant. Accordingly, police filed a kalandara in the court of Ld. SEM on 02.11.2009 along with notice u/s 111 Cr.P.C. Ld. SEM vide dated 20.05.2010 bound down the petitioner for a period of six months to maintain probe in default he will be liable for the forfeiture of amount of Rs.10,000/.
3. On receiving revision petition trial court record was summoned and Ld. APP represented the state.
4. Arguments heard on behalf of revisionist and Ld. APP for the state. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for revisionist argued and submitted that order passed by Ld. SEM is bad in law and Ld. trial court has committed mistakes while passing the order. Ld. counsel further submitted that Ld. court has exceeded its jurisdiction and remained failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order. In support of his contentions, Ld. counsel for revisionist has relied upon the following citations :
i. Smt. Vinod and others Vs. Dr. Ram Parshad
Chopra and others.
Criminal Revision No.16/2010
Dr. Jai Chand @ Jai Chand Sharma Vs. State. 2/4
3
ii.Shri. R.J. Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State (Delhi
Administration).
iii.D.M. Bhandari and others Vs. State.
iv.Kedar Nath Shaw Vs. Smt. Narma Devi and State.
On these grounds Ld. counsel for revisionist has prayed that the order of ld. SEM dated 20.05.2010 may kindly be set aside and personal bound furnished by the petitioner may be cancelled.
5. On other hand Ld. APP for state has submitted that the order of Ld. SEM dated 20.05.2010 is correct and legal and there is no illegality in the order of Ld. SEM and Ld. SEM has power to bound down any party to a dispute under inquiry.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that order of Ld. SEM vide dated 20.5.2010 as bound down the revisionist for period of six months to maintain probe and in default he will liable to forfeiture of Rs.10,000/. Further it is revealed that the court of SEM had initiated proceedings vide order dated 01.12.2009 by issuing the summon to respondents, present revisionist. Since the nature of inquiry under chapter IX of Cr.P.C. is governed by section 116 Cr.P.C. and the scheme of Section 116 clause 6 of Cr.P.C. which is mandatory to explain here which is reproduced as under :
Section 116 clause 6 of Cr.P.C.
Inquiry as to truth of information clause 6 is reproduced hereunder:
(6). The inquiry under this section shall be completed within period of six months from the date of its commencement if such inquiry is not completed the proceedings under this chapter shall, on expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, Magistrate otherwise directs; provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceedings against that person, unless terminated Criminal Revision No.16/2010 Dr. Jai Chand @ Jai Chand Sharma Vs. State. 3/4 4 earlier shall stand terminated on expiry of six months of such detention."
7. According to the scheme to the section 116 (6) Cr.P.C., it direct that any proceeding under this chapter shall stand terminated on expiry of six months from the date of its commencement.
8. Since proceedings in the present inquiry under revision was initiated by SEM on 01.12.2009 and Ld. SEM has directed the respondent, the present revisionist vide order dated 20.05.2010 thereby bound down the revisionist for six months to maintain probe. The period from commencement of proceedings and order of bound down is much outside the completion of proceedings i.e. six months. Thus, order of Ld. SEM dated 20.5.2010 is without any reason and is in a mechanical manner.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any legality or correctness or propriety in order dated 20.5.2010 and proceedings beyond the period of six months are irregular. Thus, I hereby allow the present revision petition by setting aside the order dated 20.05.2010. Revisionist is hereby freed from the proceedings before SEM, North East, Delhi. Personal bond of the revisionist is stand cancelled. Trial court record be sent back with copy of this order. Revision Petition be consigned to R.R. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 07.12.2010 ( RAMESH KUMARII ) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/ NE 01 KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI Criminal Revision No.16/2010 Dr. Jai Chand @ Jai Chand Sharma Vs. State. 4/4