Delhi High Court
Sunil Dabas vs State (The Nct Of Delhi) on 24 March, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 24th March, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 227/2018
SUNIL DABAS
S/0 LATE SH. DAYANAND
R/0 H.NO. 115,RANIKHERA,
NEW DELHI-110081 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K.Manan, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Uditi Bail, Mr. Karmanya Singh
Choudhary, Ms. Savita Sethi, Ms.
Yakshi Kataria and Ms. Nandini Ohri,
Advocates
Versus
1. STATE (THE NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent No.1
2. CHINTADEVI
W/O LATE SH. GHANSHYAM PRASAD
R/O H.NO. D-129, PARVESH NAGAR,
MUBARAKPUR, DELHI .....Respondent No.2.
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
the State with Insp. Jitender Joshi,
P.S.Aman Vihar and ACP, Rajender
Prasad, Traffic.
Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Adv. for
R-2 along with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) has been filed seeking quashing of
Order dated 09.06.2017, whereby Petitioner has been summoned for
commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
('IPC' hereinafter) read with Section 120B IPC, by the learned Additional
Session Judge under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.1412/2015, under
Section 302 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, Police Station
Aman Vihar, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, on 12.11.2015 on the information received through a
PCR call that a man has been shot at Mubarakpur, Parvesh Nagar, Kirari, the
present FIR was registered under S.302 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms
Act, 1959, Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi.
3. Investigation was conducted and thereafter, Charge-Sheet was filed in
the Court on 07.02.2016 against two accused. However, name of the
Petitioner was not mentioned in the Charge-sheet. Subsequently, at the stage
of final arguments, i.e. after about two years of commencement of trial, the
Petitioner was summoned vide Order dated 09.06.2017 under Section 319
Cr.P.C.
4. The impugned Summoning Order dated 09.06.2017 under Section
319 Cr.P.C. has been challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that there
is no material to prove the allegations of murder against the Petitioner, as
there are only three eye witnesses and none of the witnesses has deposed qua
the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been summoned on one line in the
deposition of the PW-18 Smt. Chinta Devi Complaint in examination-in-
chief, that she had met the Petitioner on the day of incident while she was
rushing to the spot who asserted that he has taken his revenge, even though
his name did not feature in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
5. It is submitted that the Complainant /PW-18 has improved her version
and disclosed Petitioner's name in during her examination-in-chief.
6. Petitioner has asserted that investigating Officer, Rajinder Prasad
(PW-23) in his examination-in-chief has stated that "the CDRs were
thoroughly analyzed and it was learned that there was no involvement of
Sonu Dabas, more so in view of the statement of the eye witness". It is
asserted that there is no evidence on record to indicate the involvement of
the Petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. Therefore, prayer is
made that the impugned Summoning Order dated 09.06.2017 be set aside
and he be discharged of the offences with which he has been charged.
7. The Prosecution, in its Status Report, has detailed about registration
of the FIR and the investigation carried by the Investigating Officer. It is
pointed out that during investigation Anil @ Bahuwa @ Hakla was arrested
on 13.11.2015, who in his Disclosure Statement stated that he had taken the
pistol from Sherkhan, which was used in the commission of crime and the
motorcycle was taken from Manjar @ Munna. PC remand of Sherkhan was
taken to recover the weapon of offence, but was not found. After completion
of investigations, Charge-Sheet was filed against the accused Anil @
Bahuwa @ Hakla.
8. During further investigation, weapon of offence i.e. pistol was
recovered at the instance of Sherkhan, which was sent to FSL for opinion
and Sherkhan was sent to JC. As per FSL result, the recovered pistol was the
same weapon which was used in murder of deceased Ghanshyam.
9. It is also stated in the Status Report that the Complainant- Chinta Devi
(PW-18), wife of deceased Ghanshyam, in her testimony deposed before the
Court that on 11.11.2015 at 01:15 am, she received a call from her neighbor
Sanjay on her husband's phone, who asked her to reach the chowk in front of
gali, as her husband was shot. She immediately when there along with her
children and on the way, Petitioner- Sunil Dabas @ Sonu, met her who told
her that he had taken the revenge. She reached the chowk and found that her
husband was lying in serious condition and when she asked from her
husband, he told that Anil Hakla had shot him at the instance of Sunil Dabas
@ Sonu for taking revenge.
10. It is submitted in the Status Report that the Investigating Officer had
recorded statement of Complainant Chinta Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
on 12.11.2015, but these facts were not mentioned and are thus, not
mentioned in the Charge-Sheet.
11. During the course of trial, twenty-five prosecution witnesses have
been examined and accused Anil Hakla was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life, which was set aside by the Division Bench of this
Court vide Judgment dated 16.03.2023. However, the learned Trial Court
has summoned the Petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC read
with Section 120 B IPC, which is justified and does not call for any
interference by this Court.
12. Respondent No.2, Chinta Devi, Complainant in her Reply has
asserted that the present Petition is gross misuse of process of the law, as the
Petitioner has concealed the material facts. It is claimed that the Petitioner
is the master mind of killing her husband Ghanshyam, because he was a
prosecution witness in case FIR No. 378/2013, under Sections
420/468/471/120B IPC, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi,
against the Petitioner and his associates, namely, Anil & Bahwa & Hakla,
Sher Khan and Sobran Singh, who had had threatened him of dire
consequences. Thereafter, they killed her husband which resulted in
registration of the present FIR, but only against Anil & Bahwa & Hakla,
Sher Khan and Sobran Singh and no action was taken against the Petitioner-
Sunil Dabas @ Sonu, who was the master mind of murder of her husband.
Neither his name was given in the FIR nor any enquiry was conducted
against him.
13. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 moved an Application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate wherein she alleged
that the Investigating Officer of the case had joined hands with the culprits
and advised and tried to get the offence compounded subject to payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- and when the Complainant showed inability, the Investigating
Officer even extended threats of dire consequences.
14. Respondent No.2 also made a Complaint to the SHO, Aman Vihar on
01.06.2016; to the Human Rights Commission on 28.09.2016 and to Women
Commission, Delhi on 03.11.2016 but no action was taken against the
accused persons.
15. Respondent No.2 has also submitted in her Reply that to execute the
threat after hatching conspiracy on 19.1.2016, Sunil Dabas @ Sonu and Sher
Khan, murdered one of the eye witness of the said FIR, namely, Asha Rama,
who had given his statement before the Court on 11.05.2016 and an FIR No.
1159/2016, under Section 302 IPC, was registered at Police Station Aman
Vihar, Delhi but even then, the accused persons were not arrested by the
police officials.
16. Respondent No.2 has submitted that her statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation was just a formality, as there is
plethora of evidence pointing towards the complicity, which was not
collected by the Investigating Officer.
17. The Investigating Officer filed a CDR report of the mobile
No.9642218491 which is in the name of Ranbir Singh and is not in the name
of Petitioner and the Investigating Officer did not deliberately disclose the
number which was in use by the present Petitioner at the time of commission
of the offence.
18. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer is deliberately and
intentionally delaying the investigation and filing false record of evidence,
which supports the Petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned Summoning
Order dated 09.06.2017 does not suffer from any infirmity and the present
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the Rejoinder, the Petitioner has reaffirmed the assertions made by
him in the present Petition.
20. Submissions heard and record perused.
21. Essentially, the FIR in question was registered on the statement of the
Chinta Devi (PW-18), wife of the deceased, wherein the Petitioner is not
named. Even during investigation, his name did not feature as one of the
accused. In the Charge-sheet also, name of accused Anil @ Bahuwa @
Hakla was mentioned and there is no mention of Petitioner. Even the three
eye witnesses to the alleged incident, have not named the Petitioner.
Moreover, even the Complainant in her statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. did not name the Petitioner.
22. The Complainant in her testimony recorded before the learned Trial
Court as PW-18, stated that as she was going to the crime spot, allegedly
Petitioner met her on the way and told her that he has taken the revenge.
This aspect was neither disclosed in the FIR nor in her statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
23. The Complainant in her cross-examination reaffirmed that she had
told the Investigating Officer about the Petitioner allegedly telling her that
he has taken the revenge, but was confronted with her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein no such fact was recorded.
24. Investigating Officer, Inspector Rajender Prasad (PW-23) has also in
his examination in chief, explained that call detail record of accused Anil @
Bahuwa @ Hakla was analyzed during investigation. Since Complainant-
Chinta Devi, had expressed her suspicion Sunil Dabas @ Sonu, the Call
Retail Record was thoroughly analyzed and it was learned that there was no
involvement of Sonu Dabas.
25. It is, therefore, evident that there is no cogent evidence against Sonu
Dabas, except the statement of the Complainant- Chinta Devi, who in her
examination-in-chief had named him as having stated that he has taken his
revenge, which in itself is not sufficient to summon him on her Application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
26. The learned Trial Court fell in error in concluding that from the
deposition of Chinta Devi, prima facie complicity of Petitioner was made
out. Learned Trial Court has overlooked the testimony of Investigating
Officer PW-23, who has categorically deposed that Call Detail Record of the
Petitioner were analyzed and no incriminating evidence was collected
against him.
27. Even if the statement of Complainant- Chinta Devi (PW-18) is
accepted, then also it may at best be termed as motive, but that in itself
cannot be the sole evidence to prima facie establish the complicity of the
Petitioner. This statement, and that too in examination in chief, which found
no support during the investigations, cannot be considered sufficient for
summoning of the Petitioner. It cannot also be ignored that the main accused
have already been acquitted by this Court, in Appeal. It is thus, held that
there is no incriminating material sufficient for summoning of the Petitioner
for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
28. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned Summoning Order
dated 09.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge in case
FIR No.1412/2015, under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms
Act, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi, is hereby set aside.
29. Consequential proceedings, arising therefrom against the Petitioner,
are hereby quashed.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2025
r
