Delhi High Court
Kavita Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 24, 2011
Date of Order: February 25, 2011
+ Crl. Rev. No.650 /2010
% 25.02.2011
Kavita Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ...Respondent
Counsels:
Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Natasha Sehrawat for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent with SI Kuldeep Malik
Mr. Mandeep Walia, Advocate for 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. This petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for
quashing of summoning order dated 8th January 2010 in FIR No.240 of 2007 under
Section 336 of IPC pending trial in the court of learned MM, Delhi and summoning order
dated 8th January, 2010 passed by learned MM.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that she being the owner of the flat No.C-12-S,
Vijata Vihar, Rohini (Sector-13), Delhi had undertaken repairs/ renovation work of her
flat. The repair and renovation work was being done as per law without causing any
harm to the respondent/ complainant. However, the complainant was not letting the
petitioner to do the repair work despite petitioner taking permission from the president of
the society and despite municipal byelaws permitting such repair work. It is alleged that
since the complainant was a retired ACP, he somehow got FIR registered with the police
station and the learned MM wrongly summoned the petitioner herein.
Crl. Rev. P.650/2010 Page 1 Of 2
3. The respondent's contention is that since the flat of the respondent was just
below the flat of the petitioner, in the garb of repair she had in fact dug out roof causing
substantial damage to his house.
4. Both the sides have placed on record materials to fortify their stand. While the
petitioner is taking the stand that no damage has been caused, the respondent on the
other hand is taking the stand that substantial damage has been caused to his flat.
5. I consider that this issue whether any damage has been caused to the house of
respondent because of the repair work undertaken by the petitioner or not cannot be
decided by this Court by entertaining this revision against the summoning order. In fact,
this disputed issue of fact has to be decided by the trial court itself and the trial court
alone after taking evidence can come to conclusion whether the offence as alleged was
committed by the petitioner or not and if the allegations made by respondent/
complainant were truthful or false. It is not a case where trial court had exceeded its
jurisdiction in issuing summoning order or taking cognizance of the offence. Nor it is a
case where trial court acted illegally warranting interference from this Court. A revisional
court under Section 397 Cr.P.C cannot shift trial of the disputed facts to itself. The
disputed facts have to be decided by the trial court only on the basis of evidence led
before it and not on the basis of perusal of documents which are yet to be proved and
veracity of which is yet to be decided before the trial court.
5. I, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
6. List this matter now on 4th April, 2011 for appearance of petitioner in person.
February 25, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl. Rev. P.650/2010 Page 2 Of 2
