CRL.M.C./303/2010 of MANJEET & KALU & OTHERS Vs THE STATE & ANOTHER

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 303/2010

MANJEET & KALU & OTHERS .... Petitioners Through

Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv.

versus

THE STATE & ANOTHER .... Respondents

Through

Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP. Mohd. Talat, Adv. for R-2. SI Rajendra Singh, PS Kapashera.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

% 23.07.2010

Mr. Naresh Kumar, the respondent No.2 herein had filed complaint

under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short). It was stated in the complaint that his son Harish Kumar on 18[th] July, 2007 had met Rakesh, Gujji, Sumit, Pradeep, Neeraj and one other person. They played cards and consumed liquor. Thereafter, Rakesh and Gujji had asked for money from the complainant’s son Harish Kumar and when he refused to meet their demands, he was brutally beaten and thrown in dry well which was 70-80 feet deep. Subsequently, Harish Kumar was rescued and taken to hospital in unconscious state. The complainant’s son Harish Kumar has suffered back injuries and is under treatment. He had also alleged that he had made repeated police complaints and met senior police officer but steps

were not taken to investigate the allegations and nab the culprits.

2. Along with the complaint, Mr. Naresh Kumar had filed an application

under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed

registration of FIR and investigation. Accordingly, police registered FIR

No.216/2007.

3. Subsequently, the police filed charge sheet dated 27[th ]October, 2007.

As per the charge sheet, five persons were mentioned in column No.2. The

last paragraph of the charge sheet states that the police was not able to get hold of evidence to implicate the persons mentioned in column 2 and the learned court may consider and decide whether they should be summoned to stand trial.

4. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16[th] July, 2008 passed the following order:-

“Present: Complainant Naresh Kumar is present with counsel.

Counsel for the complainant submits that he does not with (sic) to lead evidence nor wants to file any protest petition.

I have perused the charge sheet. I find there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused person fro (sic) the offence 307 IPC. Cognizance of the offence is taken.Let accused No.1 to 5 be summoned to face trial on 12.11.08.”

This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Additional

Sessions Judge in revision petition. This order dated 17[th] August, 2009 states that as many as 13 persons including Harish Kumar and his father Naresh Kumar have been cited as prosecution witnesses and the injured was medically examined in Anshuman Hospital, where the Doctor had opined the injuries sustained were ‘dangerous injuries’. It is further stated that the material placed on record clearly warranted taking of cognizance.

6. The said order dated 17[th] August, 2009 and the summoning order dated 16[th] July, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate do not specifically spell out and give reason why and how prima facie case for summoning of the petitioners is made out. As noticed above, in the final charge sheet filed by the police, the police had come to the conclusion that they do not have sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners herein. Orders do not show that relevant aspects were considered and examined.

7. At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has read the statement of injured Harish Kumar, in which the present petitioners have been clearly implicated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon statements of some other alleged eye witnesses.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders dated 17[th] August, 2009 and 16[th] July, 2008, which are non-speaking and non-reasoned, are set

aside and the matter is remanded back to the Metropolitan Magistrate for fresh adjudication on the question whether the present petitioners should be summoned on or not. It will be open to the complainant to lead evidence and press his case before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Revision petition is accordingly disposed of. The parties will appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 16[th] September, 2010, the date already fixed.

Dasti.

JULY 23, 2010 NA

SANJIV KHANNA, J.