The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of formal complaint and evidence for conspiracy in summoning individuals for criminal offences under IPC.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Aggrieved by an order dated 19.06.2007 of learned ACMM by which the petitioners were summoned for commission of offences punishable under Sections 188/506/509 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC, they have preferred the instant petitions to challenge its legality and correctness. Respondent No.2 / complainant has contested the revision petitions.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant petitions were that a complaint dated 11.05.2007 was lodged by respondent No.2 before learned Addl. Sessions Judge conducting trial CBI vs. Sushil Ansal to the effect that on 10.05.2007 at about 03.55 p.m. when she along with her husband and two members of the Association of the Victims of Uphar Tragedy (AVUT) came out of Court after attending proceedings, P.S.Sharma (P-1) and Deepak Kathpalia (P-3), Ansals’ employees started clicking her pictures on their mobile with some ulterior motive and it could be misused. They were accompanied by two security guards of Ansals that time. Finding to have been noticed, all of them fled the spot. She further averred that earlier also she had brought to the notice of the Court certain lewd remarks passed by the security guards. She requested the learned Presiding Officer to take strict action as it was illegal to click pictures without consent in Court-premises where photography was prohibited. When the application was taken up for consideration on 23.05.2007, learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 23.05.2007 directed the application to be placed before ‘appropriate’ authority for taking appropriate action as per provisions of the law. It was directed to be sent to learned ACMM who had the ‘administrative powers’. On receipt of the application / complaint, learned ACMM issued Court notice to respondent No.2 for appearance on 25.05.2007. On 28.05.2007, statement of the complainant as CW-1 was partly recorded. On 18.06.2007, statements of the complainant and other witnesses examined by her were recorded. By an order dated 19.06.2007 the petitioners were summoned for the commission of aforesaid offences.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 and have examined the file. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on record along with citations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned order being without jurisdiction is unsustainable. It was not permissible to take cognizance for commission of offence under Section 188 IPC in the absence of any complaint in terms of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 196(2) Cr.P.C. specifically created a bar to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. The impugned order was passed mechanically without appreciation of legal evidence. The complaint did not disclose commission of any offence under Sections 506 and 509 IPC. Issuance of process without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C. was bad. Learned Trial Court fell in grave error to take into consideration the previous complaints lodged by the complainant to infer conspiracy.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 urged that the petitioners had taken pictures of the complainant with ulterior motive. Security guards, whose identity was not known to the complainant, had uttered lewd remarks to criminally intimidate the complainant with the sole object to prevent her from pursuing her legal remedies. Such an attempt was made earlier also on various occasions for which complaints were lodged. Infraction of procedure in initiating proceeding against the petitioners is not sufficient to disbelieve the complainant and dislodge her version. Assuming that there were certain lapses, for that reason alone, the petitioners can’t be let off.

6. Admitted position is that respondent No.2 along with her husband and other victims who had formed Association of the Victim of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) used to regularly attend Court proceedings in a case CB