SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Del) 210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: S. Muralidhar, J.
Guranditta Mal and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State and Anr. – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 3373/2008 and Crl.M.A. No. 12534/2008
Decided On: 13.02.2009

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Maninder Singh and Sanjay Chaubey, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Sanjay Lao, APP and Manish Gandhi, Adv. for R-2

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 Section 304 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 200 - In relation to the same incident an FIR had already been registered and cognizance had already been taken under Section 304 IPC police having already investigated the FIR in depth and having filed the chargesheet for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC - Cryptic summoning order - Presence of the brother-in-law was adverted to for the first time in the complaint only to justify the summoning of the petitioners for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC - Medical opinion ruled out the offence under Section 302 IPC - Nothing in the pre-summoning evidence to contradict this - impugned order of summoning, set aside.

       

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenges an order dated 6th September 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2070 of 2007 titled Subhash Chander v. Guranditta Mal and Ors. whereby the petitioners have been summoned for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. The background to the present case is that one Nand Lal, the father of Respondent No. 2 Subhash Chander, gave on rent a shop on the ground floor of the premises at C-8, Arya Samaj Road, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi to late Mangha Ram, the father of Petitioner No. 1 and the grandfather of Petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioners claim that after the death of Mangha Ram, the father of Respondent No. 2 was treating the petitioners as tenants in relation to the shop in question. In 1990, however, the father of Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings to evict the petitioners. The eviction petition was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the appellate authority. It is stated that the further appeal against the said order is pending in this Court.

3. In 2000, Petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for permission to carry out repairs to the shop. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12th February, four days after the aforementioned order, they commenced the repair work in the shop. At around 3 pm on 12th February 2007, Respondent No. 2, along with his son Manish Khera and his father Nand Lal started quarrelling with the petitioners. It is alleged that started abusing and physically handling the petitioners. It is alleged that Manish Khera ran to his house on the first floor, got a knife and caused a stab injury on the arm of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, the servant of Petitioner No. 1 Nand Lal at that time went to his shop and hid himself there. The petitioners called the police and in the meanwhile Manish Khera ran away. FIR No. 75 of 2007 was registered at the instance of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary against Mansih Khera. In connection with this FIR, Manish Khera has been charged under Section 324 IPC and is facing trial.

4. A counter version of the incident is found in FIR No. 76/2007 registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2 Subhash Chander against the petitioners, Guranditta Mal, Ram Dass and Janki Dass. Subhash Chander stated that around 2.45 p.m., Nand Lal asked the above three persons to work carefully as the wall of the shop was getting affected. This incensed the petitioners who then started abusing Nand Lal. Subhash Chander stated that he then went to his house above the shop and called the police by which time he heard loud noises of quarrelling. When he looked from above, he found that Nand Lal was being caught hold of by Guranditta Mal and Janki Dass and that along with Ram Dass they were beating him by fists and kicks. Even as Subhash Chander rushed down to save Nand Lal, he saw Janki Dass and Ram Dass hitting Nand Lal on the chest with fists. As Nand Lal fell down, the three petitioners fled away. Nand Lal became unconscious. Subhash Chander took him to the BJRM Hospital where Nand Lal was declared brought dead. On the basis of the above allegations FIR No. 76 of 2007 was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC.

5. The post-mortem of Nand Lal was conducted on 13th February 2007 around Background facts 11.45 a.m. The cause of death was indicated as "heart failure as a result of coronary artery disease & its sequalae". The report also indicated the following four external injuries on the body of Nand Lal:

.(1) Reddish Abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm present on the Rt front – paneral rel

.(2) Lacreted wound of size 8 x 0.2 cm and xxxx (illegible) present on the bridge of nose.

.(3) Xxxxx (illegible) abrasion of size 5 x 2.5 cm present in the nose

.(4) Reddish abrasion of size 1.0 x 0.5 cm present on the middle of upper lip.

The investigation officer









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top