Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MEERA GIRI - Petitioner
Versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2565/2015
Decided On : 09-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Mr. S.P. Rana, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP. Mr. S.A. Rajpur, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating evidence before passing summoning orders and the requirement for a prima facie case to proceed against the accused.
Headnote:
SUMMONING - Criminal Law - IPC 376, IPC 452, IPC 323, IPC 504, IPC 506, IPC 34, IPC 120B - The court discussed the summoning of the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code based on the complaint filed by the petitioner. The court analyzed the evidence and found discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint seeking summoning of the respondents under various sections of the IPC based on an incident involving the petitioner's daughter. The trial court summoned the accused, but the order was later set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge due to discrepancies in the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the witnesses and the complainant contained material contradictions and improvements, rendering the case unreliable. The court also noted that the deposition of the witnesses was at variance with the original complaint.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the reliability of the evidence and the discrepancies between the original complaint and the statements made by the witnesses during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the evidence before passing summoning orders and highlighted the duty of the Trial Court to assess whether there was a prima facie case. The court also noted that summoning of a person as accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and cannot be done in a routine manner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge to set aside the summoning of the accused based on the unreliable and contradictory evidence.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Crl.M.A. 9109/2015
For the reasons stated in the application delay of 23 days in refiling the petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2565/2015
1. The petitioner filed a complaint case being CC No.657/4/11 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking summoning of the respondents under Sections 376/452/323/504/506/34/120B IPC against 8 accused wherein they were summoned vide order dated 21st October, 2013 after evidence was led by the petitioner and two other witnesses including her daughter. In the deposition before the Court, the daughter of the petitioner stated that on 29th May, 2011 at about 5.45 PM while she was coming to her house from the market she saw a white coloured maruti car in which few persons were sitting. Samiullah accused No.5 asked her about her mother and threatened her to withdraw the case. Samiullah exhorted the other persons to lift her when all the other persons came out of the van, Saleem held her head, Jamaludin and Iqbal held her from back and rest tried to lift her and put her in van. However the neighbor CW-3 arrived at the spot and on seeing CW3 and others the accused persons threw her on the ground and left her. She alleged that her modesty was outraged.
2. The learned Trial Court thus summoned the nine accused for offences punishable under Section 354/366/511/506 IPC vide order dated 21st October, 2013. The order dated 21st October, 2013 was challenged by the respondents No.2 to 9 wrongly mentioning two of the respondents as respondent No.2 wherein vide the impugned order dated 30th January, 2015 the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order summoning the petitioners. The learned ASJ vide the impugned order noted as under:
“8. The complainant when examined as CW-1 on 03.08.2011 has deposed as per complaint in respect of threats received by her on 28.05.2011 and on 29.05.2011. She also endorsed the complaint made to police dt. 30.05.2011 as Ex.CW-1/A and fax receipt Ex.CW-1/B. She has also mentioned that the occurrence (dt. 29.05.2011) was witnessed by her daughter, her son and one Ms. Baby (CW-2).
9. The daughter of the complainant namely ‘K’ when examined in court has deposed that on 29.05.2011 at about 05.45 pm, she was present at her house and his mother had come from outside and asked her to prepare tea and she told to her mother that there was no milk in the house. Further that her mother asked her to bring the milk from the mother dairy booth situated near their house and when she was purchasing milk from the mother dairy booth, she saw Smt. Baby who has residing near their house and Smt. Baby was also purchasing milk from the said booth. Further that when she was approaching her house and arrived about 10-15 yards from her house, she saw a white colour Maruti Van standing there and some people were sitting in the said van. Further that the accused No.5 Samiullah @ Munna was also sitting in the said van and Samiullah called her as he was known to her earlier and asked where was her mother and she told him that her mother was at home. Further that then Samiullah threatened her and said to withdraw a case which is got registered by her mother against Zafar, Naim and Ikhlakh and others u/s 376 IPC and other provisions of IPC. Further that she requested him not to threaten and said that she shall tell the truth in the court as and when required. Further that he again said that we have to withdraw the case u/s 376 IPC under all circumstances and on this she refused. Further that Samiullah caught her hand and he shouted and asked the accused persons sitting in the van to lift her and put her in the van. Further that all accused came out of the van and accused Saleem held her hand and Samiullah, Jamaluddin and Iqbal held her from her back. Further that accused Anwar and Idris have held her legs and all the accused persons tried to put her in the van forcefully and she shouted “Bachao-Bachao”. Further that at that time their neighbor Smt. Baby
