Delhi High Court
Surinder Panchal vs State Of Delhi & Ors. on 12 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th February, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4654/2014 & Crl.M.A.15867/2014
SURINDER PANCHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jha, Advocate
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Abhay Kumar and Mr. Tenzing
Tsering, Advocates for respondent
No.2/NDPL
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% ORAL
Petitioner's complaint under Sections 323/341/379/426/447/
448/451/499/506/120-B of IPC titled Surender Panchal v. General
Manager, NDPL & Ors. has been dismissed by trial court vide order
of 29th April, 2013 at pre-summoning stage by observing that
petitioner in his complaint (Ex.CW-1/1), made to the local police had
not disclosed the name of accused as Trilok whereas he has done so in
the complaint in question.
Trial court has found that no prima facie case for summoning
respondent as accused in petitioner's complaint is made out because
the eyewitness-Satish has not been got examined.
Crl.M.C.No.4654/2014 Page 1
Aforesaid order of trial court has been affirmed by the
revisional court vide impugned order of 21st May 2014.
At the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that on day of incident, petitioner did not know the name of
assailant as Trilok and he had later on learnt it, when he had gone to
the office of respondent-NDPL and so, he had made the complaint to
local police. It was submitted that non-examination of eye-witness-
Satish is not fatal as petitioner's evidence by itself is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case and so, impugned orders deserve to be
quashed.
The opposition to this petition by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 is on the ground that even in this petition, it is not
stated that petitioner had later on learnt the name of assailant as Trilok
when he had gone to the office of respondent-NDPL after the day of
the incident in question and he was not made a party before the
revisional court and thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
It was pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that
it is the case of petitioner that the premises in question was sealed by
MCD, but it is not disclosed as to when it was sealed particularly
when, as per petitioner, the premises in question was sealed and so,
there is no question of respondent No.2 de-sealing it nor it is shown
that the seal of premises in question was broken. Lastly, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the photographs are also
not on record to show any damage to the premises in question.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of impugned orders
and material on record, I find that at this stage no corroboration is
Crl.M.C.No.4654/2014 Page 2
required to petitioner-complainant's evidence but from petitioner's
evidence a prima facie case to summon respondent No.2-NDPL as an
accused is not at all made out. The suspected assailant-Trilok was
neither a party before the revisional court nor herein. A bare perusal
of complaint made by petitioner to the Commissioner of Police and
General Manager of NDPL on 23rd March, 2009 makes it abundantly
clear that there is no palpable error in the impugned orders.
Consequentially, finding no substance in this petition, it is dismissed.
The petition and application are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
FEBRUARY 12, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.4654/2014 Page 3
