Page 1 of 26

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 02^nd May, 2022

+

CRL.M.C. 1203/2022 & Crl.M.A. 5222/2022 (stay)

DR. PRADEEP DUTTA.

.... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Jyoti

Dutt Sharma, Mr. C.K. Bhatt,

and Mr. Sparsh Chaudhary,

Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP

for the State with SI Vinod

Bhati, PS- Greater Kailash-I.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Garg with

Mr. Aayush

Agarwal,

Advocates

for

R-2

to

5- Accused.

%

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid

mode [physical and virtual hearing].

1.

By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter, “CrPC”], the petitioner assails

an order dated 04.12.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001762

Page 2 of 26

“MM”] in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 34/2002, dated

04.02.2002, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash-I, under

Sections 341, 323, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

[hereinafter, “IPC”].

2.

The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein are the accused in the subject

FIR, which was registered at the instance of the petitioner herein. By

the impugned order dated 04.12.2021, the MM has rejected an

application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the CrPC for

summoning of two additional witnesses on behalf of the prosecution.

Facts

3.

The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were neighbours.

The petitioner is a doctor by profession. The FIR concerns an incident

which is alleged to have taken place on 30.01.2002 at 9:50 AM. The

petitioner claims to have gone to the residence of the respondent Nos.

2 to 5 with a process server to serve summons upon them in

connection with a writ petition filed by the petitioner’s mother,

Mrs. Roma Dutta before this Court. The petitioner further states that

the process server informed him that the addressees have refused

service of summons, following which he was slapped and kicked by

the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and some other persons. His clothes and

spectacles were damaged. He was thereafter dragged inside the

premises of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and beaten up. He was also

later pushed onto the driveway. The petitioner made further

complaints in this regard to the police authorities on 30.01.2002,

04.02.2002 and 04.03.2002.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001762

Page 3 of 26

4.

A cross-FIR [FIR No. 33/2002], dated 04.02.2002, was also

registered in respect of the same incident against the petitioner under

Sections 415 and 427 of the IPC, at the instance of the respondent

Nos. 2 to 5 herein.

5.

Chargesheets have been filed in both the FIRs, and trials are in

progress. In the course of the trial arising out of FIR No. 33/2002, the

petitioner examined defence witness, including DW-2- Hasib Akhtar

[hereinafter, “Akhtar”] and DW-3-Bijender Chauhan [hereinafter,

“Chauhan”]. Both of them were petitioner’s assistants, when the

alleged incident took place. They deposed as to their presence at the

venue, when the incident in question took place, and gave details

thereof in their respective testimonies.

6.

In FIR No. 34/2002, the petitioner, his wife [Mrs. Parswati

Dutta], and his daughter [Ms. Esha Dutta], have been examined as

prosecution witnesses [PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively]. The

petitioner [PW-1], during his examination in chief, on 24.07.2009,

deposed that he heard the voice of his wife and two assistants when he

was in the premises of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. He named Chauhan

and Akhtar as the two assistants in question. Mrs. Parswati Dutta

[PW-2] deposed on 24.07.2009 that she was informed about the

incident by Akhtar and Chauhan. Ms. Esha Dutta [PW