Delhi High Court
S.R.Bansal vs State Nct Of Delhi on 24 November, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 28th September, 2010
Date of Order: 24th November, 2010
+Crl. M.C. No. 2064/2009 & Crl. M.A. 7647-7648/2009
%
24.11.2010
S.R. BANSAL ... Petitioner
Through: Mr Om Prakash Shekhawat, Advocate
Versus
STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP
Mr. Chandan Singh, Mr. Rahul Malik for
Mr. V.K. Malik, Advocate for complainant/R-2
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 8th December,
2007 whereby the learned MM took cognizance of offence against the petitioner and
issued summons for appearance against the petitioner.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that one
Satwant Kaur, arrayed as an accused in a case was discharged in FIR No. 359/2001,
P.S. S.N. Puri by the Trial Court. Against the order of discharge dated 2nd August,
2004, a revision petition was preferred before learned ASJ. The learned ASJ
dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 28th September, 2005. Against
the order dated 28th September, 2005, Umrao Singh, complainant filed a Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 6389/2005 and this Court vide order dated 29th October, 2007
allowed this Crl. Misc. and set aside order dated 28th September, 2005 and 2nd
August, 2004 and directed the court to frame appropriate charge against accused
Satwant Kaur and proceed in accordance with law. However, while disposing of the
Crl. Misc., this Court made observations that the plea taken by S.R. Bansal that he
had duly executed Power of Attorney (POA) in favour of Satwant Kaur does not seem
to be correct as the POA was found to be prepared on a fake stamp paper and had
not been notarized by the Notary Public whose name appeared on POA and
probably even S.R. Bansal was involved in the whole episode, but later on he
seemed to have given protection to Satwant Kaur by executing an antedated POA on
a forged stamp paper. After disposal of Crl. Misc. Petition by this Court and
considering these observations, made by this Court, the learned Trial Court
summoned S.R. Bansal also as an accused vide impugned order.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no
material before the learned MM for summoning the petitioner. Merely because the
HC in its order had made certain observations against the petitioner, would not be a
sufficient ground for the trial court to summon the petitioner as an accused. The
petitioner can be summoned in a criminal case pending trial only in accordance with
law and not otherwise. The petitioner could not have been summoned by the Trial
Court unless there was sufficient material placed on record by the prosecution to
show the involvement of the petitioner.
4. S.R. Bansal was not initially summoned by the Trial Court. The Trial Court,
while summoning an accused and taking cognizance had to consider the material
available on its record. The material available on record of trial court was referred by
this Court and this Court made observations and drawn inference against petitioner
on the basis of this material. The Trial Court, if it finds that sufficient material was on
record to show that some other person was also involved in the offence, can
summon such other person. The Trial Court in this case summoned the petitioner
not merely because this Court had made certain observations against him but
because the investigation showed that alleged POA was on a forged stamp paper
and even the signature of Notary Public were forged. I consider that the summoning
of the petitioner was rightly done. The petition is dismissed.
NOVEMBER 24, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
