Rachna Aggarwal vs Anurag Mittal
2011 Latest Caselaw 356 Del

            * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           +CRL. REV. P. 265 OF 2010

                     Date of Order: 20th January, 2011

%
                                                                20.01.2011

RACHNA AGGARWAL                                ... Petitioner
             Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate

              Versus

ANURAG MITTAL                                            ... Respondents
                      Through: Respondent in person


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?

                                    ORAL

1.     The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against order

dated 9th March, 2010, passed by learned MM dismissing the complaint of

the petitioner against respondent under Section 441, 506 and 509 of IPC.

The petitioner is estranged and separated wife of the respondent and

matrimonial disputes are pending between them.


2.     She filed a complaint before learned MM that on 13 th March, 2005,

she was to travel to Sirsa for an official tour. She had reached Old Delhi

Railway Station to board the train. However, when she was about to

board the train, the accused reached there and obstructed her way and

tried to restrain her from boarding the train and used uncivilized and


Crl. Rev. P. 265 of 2010                                        Page 1 of 3
 vulgar language. She, therefore, filed a written complaint before Police

Station Old Delhi Railway Station about the incident.       After filing this

complaint, she examined herself as sole witness. However, she did not

produce either the office order showing that she was to go for official tour

to Sirsa on 13th March, 2005 or the ticket booked for her travel from Delhi

to Sirsa. She did not examine any witness as to what was the purpose of

her official tour. In the absence of any of the documentary evidence to

corroborate her version, the learned trial court dismissed the complaint.


3.     The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that oral testimony

of the petitioner was sufficient to summon the respondent and the

previous conduct of the respondent in harassing the petitioner should

have been taken into account and the trial court should have given

credence to the testimony of the petitioner.       Therefore, dismissal of

complaint was unjustified.


4.     This Court had observed time and again that summoning of a

person in a criminal court should not be considered as a trivial matter as

this affects the liberty of the person and the Court must scrutinize the

evidence carefully before summoning the person as an accused.

Wherever documentary evidence in support of oral testimony is easily

available, the Court must look for corroboration of oral testimony from the

documentary evidence. Whenever a complaint says that the complainant

received telephone call, the court must summon the telephone company

and look into the call record to ascertain if there was actually a call made

or not. Similarly, wherever there was documentary evidence available to

Crl. Rev. P. 265 of 2010                                        Page 2 of 3
 corroborate the oral testimony, the court must insist for examination of

such documentary evidence to satisfy itself about the truthfulness of the

oral testimony.


5.     In the present case, according to complainant, she was on an

official tour. The office order asking her to move to Sirsa were required to

be made available to the Court to believe her testimony. Since she was

on official tour, her ticket would have been booked only by the office in

advance.    She was not travelling without ticket.    The record of ticket

having been booked in advance is easily available either with railway

authority or would have been available with her office that made payment

for the ticket to the railway authorities. None of these documents was

produced before the trial court. The particulars of the train i.e the name

of train or its number in which she was to travel and her ticket was

booked, were also not disclosed to the court.          In the absence of

corroborating evidence which would have been easily available to the

complainant, the learned MM rightly rejected her complaint.


       I find no reason to interfere with the order of trial court.    This

revision is hereby dismissed.




JANUARY 20, 2011                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

acm