Delhi High Court
Pinki Kaushal vs State, Nct Of Delhi on 24 March, 2021
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24th March, 2021
+ CRL.M.C. 542/2021
PINKI KAUSHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Sethi, Mr. Hemant Gulati &
Mr. Anshika Sethi, Advocates
Versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Vipin
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. By this petition, petitioner is seeking setting aside of order dated
05.05.2018 passed by the learned ACMM and order dated 05.03.2020
passed by the learned court of Sessions.
2. In complaint case bearing CC No. 5006631/2016, registered at police
station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, the learned ACMM, while refusing to summon
the accused arrayed by the petitioner in her complaint, dismissed
petitioner's application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. vide order dated
05.05.2018. The said order was challenged by the petitioner/complainant
and the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 05.03.2020, dismissed the
revision petition holding it to be devoid of merits.
3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred the
present petition on the ground that both the courts below have passed the
orders without considering the settled proposition of law and material aspect
on record and therefore, these deserve to be quashed being improper and
illegal.
4. The crux of the complaint in question, are that petitioner had filed an
application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against WSI Rajni, WSI Sushma and
SHO, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi under the relevant provisions of law. The
allegation leveled in the complaint are that on 15.11.2016, the complainant
was standing in the que outside SBI Bank, Mohan Garden Branch, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi to deposit a sum of Rs.85,000/- for change of old
currency notes with the new currency notes, as by that time currency in the
denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- notes were discontinued and there
was huge rush, in order to maintain law and order, WSI Rajni suddenly
started hitting people with danda which she was carrying and in the said
process, she hit the petitioner on her shoulder and hands while uttering
abusing language. It is alleged when petitioner protested to the beatings, she
was dragged inside the entry portion of the bank and was given slaps. The
petitioner/complainant, who had suffered chikungunya fever, was not in
good health and physical state due to which she along with a few others fell
down. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner had called PCR at
number 100 at 15:48 hrs; 15:51 hrs and 16:02 hrs and when PCR reached
the spot, instead of hearing the grievance of petitioner, WSI Rajni along
with other male police officials manhandled her and snatched her bag, which
was containing the old currency notes. When petitioner reached the police
station to complain the SHO regarding alleged incident, she was made to sit
till 09:30 PM and WSI Rajni threatened her that she would be taught a
lesson.
5. Further, when the police did not register the case, she filed a petition
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed and thereafter,
petitioner proceeded to lead pre-summoning evidence under Section 200
Cr.P.C.
6. Before the trial court, petitioner got herself examined as CW-1 and
reiterated the facts of the complaint and also modified her complaint stating
that the accused persons used the words such like "Sali ko aur maro aur
maro, tum ek wahiyat aurat ho, abhi to men tumahara ilaz karoongi etc." .
7. She had also got her husband Kewal Singh Kaushal examined as CW-
2, who has supported the version putforth by the complainant by stating that
he had sent her to deposit the amount of Rs.85,000/- and when he had called
her, she informed him that she was standing in the que with the said amount.
8. Petitioner had also got examined Ms. Meena Devi as CW-3, who is
her neighbor. This witness had stated that she knew the complainant for last
15 years and on the said day, she had accompanied her to the bank to deposit
the amount of Rs.85,000/-.
9. After closing of pre-summoning evidence on 20.03.2018, the learned
ACMM vide order dated 05.05.2018 dismissed petitioner's complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Revisional Court after analyzing the pre-
summoning evidence and material on record upheld the order passed by
learned ACMM while passing a detailed order.
10. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at the
time of taking cognizance of the offence and summoning of the accused, the
courts are only required to see that a prima facie case is made out against the
accused person and not to go into the details of the case and the evidence to
find out if the conviction would be possible or not. To strengthen his
arguments, learned counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.: 2019 (2) RCR (Crl.) 38.
11. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has also produced
medical documents before the concerned SHO as well as before the trial
court to show that petitioner had suffered chikengunia and was not in fit
state of health which have not been taken into consideration while passing
the impugned orders.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has
supported the impugned orders and he submits that after hearing and perusal
of material on record, the learned trial court has passed the detailed
impugned orders which do not call for any interference and hence, this
petition deserves outright dismissal.
13. After hearing counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
impugned orders, material placed on record, and decision relied upon, it
cannot be disputed that at the time of summoning, the trial court has to take
a prima facie view of the matter but no doubt, courts cannot mechanically
pass order for summoning without applying the mind.
14. A perusal of impugned orders reveals that the complaint in question
was a counter blast to the FIR No. 807/2016, under Sections 186/353/332
IPC, filed against the petitioner for allegedly slapping WSI Rajni while on
duty. The court has also taken view of the fact that the version put-forth by
the complainant in her initial complaint and complaint under Section 200 of
the Code is varying with regard to allegations leveled against WSI Rajni qua
the language and wordings used by her. It also stands noted in the impugned
order that the medical documents placed before the court were much prior to
the happening of alleged incident and that petitioner did not get herself
medically examined if at all she had received injuries on her shoulder or
hands and there was no MLC on record to establish that petitioner was
beaten with lathi or was manhandled by WSI Rajni or any other police
official.
15. During pre-summoning evidence, petitioner has examined her
husband as CW-2 but he is not eye witness to the alleged incident and his
statement is recorded only on hear say facts and so, this witness has rightly
not been relied upon. Further, CW-3 is known to petitioner for last 15 years
and her testimony could not relied upon being interest witness. Petitioner
has not been able to bring any witness from bank, in whose internal
premises she was allegedly beaten up.
16. With regard to allegation of WSI Rajni and police official robbing her
money from her bag, learned trial court has taken note of the fact that in the
complaint petitioner has alleged that when she counted the money, she could
find Rs.55,000/- in her bag and not Rs.85,000/- but she has nowhere stated
that the accused had taken the money.
16. In my considered opinion, the observations of the courts below are
based upon pre-summoning evidence brought before the court by the
petitioner herself and I find that the learned trial court has meticulously dealt
with every aspect possible for arriving at a just decision.
17. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned orders.
18. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2021
r
