Manjeet & Kalu & Others vs State & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 3457 Del

04
*     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
            ORDER

% 23.07.2010

Mr. Naresh Kumar, the respondent No.2 herein had filed a 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 18th 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 a 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

CRL.M.C.303/2010 Page 1 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 27th 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 16th 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."

5. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Additional CRL.M.C.303/2010 Page 2 Sessions Judge in a revision petition. This order dated 17th 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 17th August, 2009 and the summoning order

dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate do not

specifically spell out and give reason why and how prima facie a 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 17th August,

2009 and 16th July, 2008, which are non-speaking and non-reasoned, are set

CRL.M.C.303/2010 Page 3 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 16th September, 2010, the date already fixed.

Dasti.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      JULY 23, 2010
      NA




CRL.M.C.303/2010                                                      Page 4