Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. vs Braham Dutt Tiwari on 24 January, 2019
SHAKUN ANAND
04.02.2019 11:30
$~14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th January, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 342/2016 and Crl.M.A.1454/2016
RAJ KUMAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.P. Katiyar, Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Verma, Advocate
Versus
BRAHAM DUTT TIWARI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the criminal complaint (CC No.26/2001) of the respondent
presented on 07.12.2001, the petitioners along with one another were
summoned by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), by his order
dated 17.01.2015, to answer the accusations of offences punishable
under sections 427/448/380/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The said order was challenged by the petitioners in the court of
sessions by criminal revision petition No.17/2015. The revisional
court dismissed the said challenge by order dated 03.11.2015.
Challenging both the said consistent orders of the two courts below,
the present petition was filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this
court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.).
2. The petition is resisted by the respondent (complainant). The
complainant has alleged that he was in possession of a certain plot of
land forming part of khasra No.360 in village Gazipur, Delhi, he
having raised construction of one room thereupon wherein he had
placed some personal property, he being engaged in the process of
further construction on 04.11.2001. He alleged that on 08.11.2001, the
petitioners with certain others had converged on the said plot and had
forcibly demolished the structure that he had developed and physically
assaulted his wife stealing some of his moveable property. Reference
was made to temporary injunction granted by the civil court in some
litigation which was initiated around the same time. He alleged that
the report to police on 22.11.2001 followed by another complaint
dated 26.11.2001 had not evoked any meaningful response.
3. The complainant had examined himself (CW-2) and his wife
(CW-1) in the pre-summoning inquiry, also examining his son Brijesh
Kumat Tiwari (CW-3). It is on that basis that the summoning order
was passed which has been upheld by the revisional court.
4. It is the argument of the petitioners that the complaint case has
been set up on false accusations, it being a counter-blast to the FIR
that had been registered vide No.413/2001, involving offences
punishable under sections 452/448/342/506/34 IPC. It appears that on
the complaint of the first petitioner, the said FIR was registered, his
case being that he was in possession of the subject property, attempt
having been made by the respondent and his wife with certain others
to commit illegal trespass. The said State case is presently under trial.
5. The fact that the police had registered the FIR at the instance of
the first petitioner is no reason why the case of the respondent is to be
disbelieved without giving him an opportunity to prove his version. It
may be that the civil suit was not pursued and was suffered to be
dismissed in default. But, the evidence on the basis of which
summoning order has been passed cannot be trashed only on such
account. The complaint of the respondent has given rise to a cross
case which, in the given facts and circumstances, will have to be tried
and decided simultaneously with the State case of the opposite party,
i.e., the petitioners.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, no case is made out for
any interference by this court at this stage.
7. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 24, 2019
vk
