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

1994 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1

DELHI HIGH COURT
, J
Jacob J. (Dr.) and Others v. State
Criminal Revision No. 1003 of 1992



A Magistrate can summon individuals not charge-sheeted by police if there is prima facie evidence of their involvement in an alleged offence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Summoning of accused - Petitioners sought to quash summoning order dated November 25, 1992, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, asserting lack of prima facie evidence against them - Allegations of criminal conspiracy and violent conduct by security personnel of a hospital during an altercation with the complainant and her husband - Complainants accused petitioners of masterminding the attack through their security personnel - Evidence reviewed indicated direct involvement of petitioners based on statements recorded during investigation - Court clarified that a Magistrate can summon additional accused if prima facie evidence is established, regardless of whether they were charge-sheeted by police. (Paras 11, 12, 16, 19, 27)

Findings of Court:
The learned Magistrate acted within jurisdiction to summon petitioners given the evidence presented suggesting their participation in the incident, yet erroneously applied Section 319 to justify summons without recording evidence in trial. (Paras 28, 31)

Issues: Whether the Magistrate had the authority to summon individuals not charged by police and the sufficiency of evidence against them to warrant such summoning. (Paras 9, 10, 27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that a committing Magistrate may summon individuals if there's prima facie evidence of their involvement, emphasizing that summoning involves taking cognizance of the offence, not just the offenders. (Paras 18, 24)

Result: Petition allowed in part; summoning order upheld for some petitioners, set aside for others, with directions for reconsideration. (Paras 32)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the incident (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments on the authority of the magistrate (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis on cognizance of offense (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 18)
4. ratio regarding summoning non-charge-sheeted persons (Para 13 , 16 , 17)
5. court's conclusion and directions given (Para 19 , 22 , 33)

1. This is a petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated November 25, 1992 passed by Mr. K. S. Mohi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi summoning them in a case based on FIR No. 186 / 1992.

2. On August 24, 1992 at 11.40 p.m., a First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, complainant, with the Police Station Subzi Mandi from which it appears that the complainant was staying at 6, Boulevard Road in the official accommodation provided to her husband Mr. J. P. Singh, ASJ for the last five years. It also appears that the Delhi Administration had allotted the land covered under Bungalows Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 Boulevard Road to St. Stephens' Hospital subject to their vacation. Against this a writ petition was moved by Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties in which an interim stay was granted by this Court. In respect of bungalow No. 4, it is asserted that on its vacation by one Mr. R. K. Khanna, forcible possession thereof was taken by St. Stephens Hospital. It is alleged that after taking over the possession of the said bungalow, demolition and construction work was started on the same by the management of the Hospital. Further case as disclosed by the F1R is that the St. Stephens side started troubling the complainant and her family by cutting telephone wires and tampering with electric wires. Besides the labourers employed by them used the pathway running between bungalows Nos. 4 and 6. The labourers employed by the St. Stephens Hospital were lodged in the garage of bungalow No. 4, which is opposite the garage of the complainant and adjoins her servant quarters. The first information report further states that the women folk living in the said servant quarters were being harassed by the labourers which led to making of a written complaint by the complainant's husband to the District Judge and Police. As a result of the complaint, it was decided between the parties that the labour employed by St. Stephens' Hospital would not use the aforesaid pathway and will also not create any trouble. However, on August 23, 1992 Badarpur (building material) was allegedly stacked alongside the eastern wall of the complainant's bungalow with the intention of getting the premises vacated. As a result of the pressure of the said building material, the wall gave way and some persons were injured including one Bhim Singh, who was staying in the servant quarters of bungalow No. 6. On August 24, 1992 at 4 p.m. a duty constable came running to the bungalow and reported that 20-25 security men from St. Stephens' Hospital including their Head Mr. Verghese were indulging in vandalism in the common pathway despite his objection. The police guard felt that force would be necessary to prevent a fight. Upon this complainant's husband rang the police chowki for reinforcement. Thereafter, the constable went to his post for discharging his duties. The complainant, however, followed the constable to see for herself as to what was happending. On seeing the complainant, the security guards of St. Stephens' Hospital said that this was the wife of the Sessions Judge whereupon Verghese is stated to have abused the complainant and holding both her wrists dragged her. Verghese is also said to have stated that the complainant was the root cause of the trouble. Seeing the complainant being dragged, Chanda, wife of Bhima, raised an alarm as a result whereof other people who resided in the servant quarters of Bungalow No. 6, namely, Lalji, Rajinder, Shambhu, Pritam and others asembled at the place of the incident. They objected to the behaviour of the sec































































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