Delhi High Court
Zile Singh vs State & Ors. on 15 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 15th October, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. 2376/2014
ZILE SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar with Mr. Atul S.
Rawat, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing order dated 26.03.2014
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (North), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi whereby criminal revisions filed by respondents were
allowed.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that pursuant to order
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, FIR No.72/2010 was registered at P.S. Timar Pur, Delhi.
The petitioner filed a complaint on the allegations, inter alia, that on
21.03.2010 petitioner along with his family members reached at his
ancestral property (Farm House at Gali No.9, Village Jagatpur, Delhi).
Later on at about 6:00 p.m. Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate and Mr.
Gautam also joined them. After a brief while respondent Nos.2 to 4
forcibly entered in the said Farm House. It is alleged that respondent
No.2 was carrying his licensed revolver. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 after
entering the said farm house shouted and threatened the petitioner and
respondent No.2 fired a gun shot in the air. While respondent No.3
was aiming his revolver at the petitioner, respondent No.4 caught hold
of the petitioner but the petitioner somehow rescued himself and ran
inside the house. Respondent No.2 seeing the petitioner running fired
a shot at him which got lodged at the door of his house. Hearing this
ruckus, the neighbourers gathered at the spot seeing which respondent
Nos.2 to 4 fled away from the spot.
3. The investigation was conducted by the local police, during
which statements of eyewitnesses were recorded and subsequently an
FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, an untraced
report was filed by the investigating officer. Vide order dated
07.10.2013, learned trial Court summoned respondent Nos.2 to 6
herein for the offences punishable under Sections 307/452/326/323/506
part II/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.
4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, respondent Nos.2 to 4
filed Criminal Revision No.154/2013 and respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed
Criminal Revision No.10/2014, which were allowed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Delhi vide impugned order dated
26.03.2014.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the
present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the investigation
was conducted by the local police and thereafter the investigation was
transferred to DIU (North) without any reason, wherein not only was
the case transferred from one investigating officer to another, but a
number of status reports were also filed before the trial Court. The
investigating officer informed the trial Court that the matter has been
transferred to Crime Branch under the orders of the senior officers and
assigned to one Mr. Rajinder Singh, ACP. He also submits that on an
objection raised by the petitioner, learned trial Court wrote a letter to
the Commissioner of Police but instead of replying to the said letter,
the investigation was assigned to SI Sushil Tyagi, who in collusion
with the respondents threatened injured Gautam and other witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the
time of taking cognizance trial Court has to see only prima facie case
and a detailed discussion on merits is not required. He has pointed out
that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi ignored the statement of
the petitioner/complainant, MLC, statements of the witnesses, the
report of ballistic expert, finger prints report, as well as recovery of
empty bullet covers. The statement of witnesses were recorded
without any delay which corroborates the version of the petitioner. He
also submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has related
the entire evidence and has given the findings on merit which is not
permissible.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record.
9. It is a settled law that on filing of charge-sheet under Section
173 of Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case has
been made out to go to trial despite the final report submitted by the
police, then in such an event if the Magistrate decides to proceed
against the persons accused, he would have to proceed on the basis of
the police report and either inquire into the matter or commit it to the
court of sessions, if the same was found to be triable by the sessions
court. The trial Court cannot act in a mechanical and casual manner
and summon the accused merely upon the basis of complaint. The
Court has to be satisfied whether there was any sufficient material on
record to summon the accused. In case, the Magistrate finds that the
complaint/ evidence recorded discloses a prima facie case, he is
empowered to take cognizance.
10. In the instant case the untraced report was filed by the
investigating officer primarily on three grounds; firstly no independent
witness has deposed against the accused persons/ respondent Nos.2 to
6; secondly the alleged weapon of offence and cartridges found on the
spot were not matching; and thirdly the whereabouts of the accused
persons as well as complainant/ petitioner on the date and time of
incident are not on or near the spot as per call details record.
11. The trial Court has considered the judgements in 'Jagdish Ram
vs. State of Rajasthan', AIR 2004 SC 1734; 'Sheo Shanker Singh vs.
State of Jharkhand Anr.', AIR 2011 SC 1403, 'K. Neelveni vs.
State', AIR 2010 SC 3191; 'Dr. Nupur Talwar vs. CBI', (2012) 11
SCC 465 and 'Vasanti Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', (2012)
2 SCC 731. In Vasanti Dubey's case (surpa) it was held that inquiry
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. cannot be given a go if the Magistrate
refuses to accept the closure report submitted by the investigating
agency as this inquiry is legally vital to protect the affected party from
a frivolous complaint and a vexatious prosecution in complaint cases.
12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has observed that
there are some irregularities in the complaint filed by the petitioner.
During investigation, the statement of witnesses namely Gautam and
Sukhjinder, Advocate were recorded on 22.03.2010 who had not
supported the case of the petitioner. Mr. Gautam has nowhere
mentioned that he heard the gun shot and Mr. Sukhjinder, Advocate
stated it was the complainant who narrated the incident to him. During
investigation statement of Shaukat Ali and Parveen were also recorded
who had not mentioned any information regarding any such incident.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi also observed that other
witnesses namely, Inder Raj and Sri Pal could be influenced as no
other witness has supported the case of the complainant.
13. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has also observed that
Mr. Attar Singh fired a bullet from his licensed revolver, which is 12
mm bore gun. However, the empty cartridges found at the spot were of
9 mm. and there is no mention of a 9 mm gun in the complaint case
which raises a reasonable suspicion.
14. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated
26.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and
hence there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Therefore, the present petition is dismissed in limine.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 15, 2014
aj
