Delhi High Court
B.S.Mor & Anr. vs Govt Of Nct & Anr. on 1 September, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I- 21 & 23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 01, 2015
(i) + CRL.M.C. 4168/2014 & Crl.M.A.No.813/2015
B.S. MOR & ANR . ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais and Ms. Seema
Misra, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Satyender Gulia & SI
Narender Sherawat
Mr. Vikas Arora and Mr. Dheeraj
Manchanda, Advocates for
respondent No.2
(ii) + CRL.M.C. 5537/2014 & Crl.M.A.No.18922/2014
B S MOR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais and Ms. Seema
Misra, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Satyender Gulia & SI
Narender Sherawat
Mr. Vikas Arora and Mr. Dheeraj
Manchanda, Advocates for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
Crl.M.C.Nos. 4168/2014 & 5537/2014 Page 1
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In SC/ST/35/2011, Jitender Singh Harit Vs. B.S.Mor & anr.,
petitioners' application to summon seven witnesses in defence has been
rejected by the trial court vide order of 11 th August, 2014, which is under
challenge in the above captioned first petition [Crl.M.C.No. 4168/2014].
Petitioners' application for placing on record certified copies of
pleadings in CS (OS) No.2240/2011 stands rejected by the trial court vide
order of 15th November, 2014, which is under challenge in the above
captioned second petition [Crl.M.C.No. 5537/2014].
Since the above captioned two petitions arise out of
SC/ST/35/2011, Jitender Singh Harit Vs. B.S.Mor & anr, therefore, with
the consent of learned counsel representing both sides, the above
captioned two petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
aforesaid two applications have been erroneously declined by the trial
court, as it is the defence of petitioners that respondent No.2 was trying to
illegally usurp the property in question. It was pointed out by learned
counsel for petitioners that FIR No.51/2003, registered against respondent
No.2 herein, is at the final stage of hearing and the instant complaint is a
counter blast to the aforesaid FIR. It is asserted by petitioners' counsel
that the property in question belongs to 'Whig Family' and respondent
No.2 herein is infact a trespasser. It was asserted by petitioners' counsel
that the pleadings of the aforesaid civil suit has a bearing on the
complaint case in question and therefore, documents of the said suit are
Crl.M.C.Nos. 4168/2014 & 5537/2014 Page 2
necessary to rebut charge under Section 448 of the IPC, and so these
documents deserve to be brought on record in order to effectively defend
petitioners' in the complaint case in question.
Reliance was placed upon decisions in Bhagwan Singh Vs. The
State of Punjab (I) AIR 1952 SC 214; Rakkappan Vs. State through The
Inspector of Police 2009-1-LW (Crl) 1004; Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev
Singh & ors. (2012) 1 SCC 425 and Guhati Sub-Divisional Market
Committee Vs. Suresh Sikaria 2013 (4) GLT 486 to submit that certified
copies of pleadings of the civil suit are per se admissible and so, trial
court has erred in not permitting petitioners to place the certified copies
of documents in the suit proceedings.
Reliance was also placed upon decisions in Sudhir Kumar Dutt Vs.
The King AIR 1949 FC 5; B K Lingana & ors. Vs. State of Mysore AIR
1954 Musore 12; V K Seetharama Rao Government of Mysore AIR 1954
Kant 9; Ronald Wood Mathams Vs. State of West Bengal (1995) 1 SCR
216; Fazal Khan Vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi 2013 (2) CC 963; Natasha
Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 5 SCC 741 and Lalit
Kumar Paigrahi Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2014 Crl.L.J. 2794 to submit
that the importance of defence witness cannot be discounted and a fair
opportunity ought to be granted to petitioners to establish their stand
before the trial court. Thus, it is submitted that impugned orders deserve
to be quashed in order to ensure fair trial.
Both these petitions are strongly opposed by learned counsel for
respondent No.2, who submits that the civil litigation is of the year 2011
whereas the incident herein is of the year 2003 and neither the evidence
of witnesses sought to be led nor the documents sought to be brought on
Crl.M.C.Nos. 4168/2014 & 5537/2014 Page 3
record has any relevance and petitioners, by way of these two
applications, are seeking to bring in the civil litigation into criminal
proceeding just with a view to delay the criminal proceedings and that
decisions relied upon by petitioners have no application to the facts of the
instant case and so, the impugned orders deserve to be sustained.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order,
material on record and decisions cited, I find that petitioners in their
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have taken a stand that they had
gone to the property in question to clean its front portion, which was
lying vacant and they had seen J.S. Harit and two other persons had
broken locks. The categoric stand of petitioners is that they had gone to
the front portion of the house in question for routine maintenance.
Considering the stand taken by petitioners in the statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., as referred to herein above, the afore-noted
decisions are of no avail to the case of petitioners and petitioners'
application in respect of civil suit, which was filed in the year 2011, has
been rightly declined by the trial court, as the stand taken in the civil
proceedings cannot be permitted to be entertained in criminal proceedings
as there is no relevance between the two proceedings.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned orders, the above
captioned two petitions and applications are dismissed while not
commenting on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice petitioners
before the trial court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
September 01, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.Nos. 4168/2014 & 5537/2014 Page 4
