Kaur Vs. D.S. Kapoor & Ors  Insc 513 (28 September 2001)
Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil D E R Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
the petitioner, party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
husband of the petitioner (since deceased) filed a complaint under Sections
506/452/323/34 read with Section 120-B IPC against the respondents 1-4. It is
not necessary to set out the details of the complaint as the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in his order has set out the facts of the case in detail.
the preliminary statements were recorded, the respondents were summoned and
after recording pre-charge evidence, the learned Magistrate discharged the
respondents finding no justification to proceed with the case. The petitioner,
aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, filed criminal revision No.
80/99 in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the petitioner,
party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents and having
considered the material brought on record, both documentary and oral, dismissed
the revision petition as against the respondents 1-3 and allowed it only as
against respondent no. 4, Javed Ahmed. Aggrieved by the said order of the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 2703/2000 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.
High Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and in that view, the petition was dismissed.
Hence, the petitioner has filed this Special Leave Petition before this Court.
petitioner, party-in person, submitted that there is enough evidence to proceed
against respondents 1-3 also; when the same evidence was accepted as against
respondent no. 4, Javed Ahmed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not
right in dismissing the revision petition as against respondents 1-3. It was
further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having observed
that the evidence given by the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner is
positive against all the respondents, the case should have been proceeded
against all of them. The High Court also committed an error in confirming the
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the
learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned
have perused the impugned order and the records placed before us. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge has considered both oral and documentary evidence. It
is no doubt true that referring to the statements of the complainant and his
wife, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has said that their evidence is
positive meaning thereby they gave evidence supporting the complainant. But, on
scrutiny and after examination of evidence, both oral and documentary, did not
find any justification to proceed with the criminal case against the
respondents 1-3. In the impugned order, he has pointed out that Exbt. PW2/5
clearly shows the mind of the complainant that the complainant bore some
ill-will against the respondent D.S. Kapoor. It is further pointed out that in
PW2/4, in the complaint written by the complainant, he had nowhere mentioned
the names of respondents 1- 3 and that no medical examination has been got done
and no photographs of the alleged breaking of the door have been placed on
record. Under the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
dismissed the revision petition as against respondents 1-3. As far as
respondent no. 4 is concerned, his name was found in Exbt. PW2/4; the memo
report given by the complainant and the same was supported by the testimony of
the witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that even if
the medical evidence was not there, the oral evidence required consideration as
far as Javed Ahmed, the respondent no. 4, was concerned. The High Court, not
finding any infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, confirmed the same.
these circumstances, in our view, this case does not call for interference at
our hands under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition
we make it clear that in case any evidence comes on record justifying to
proceed against the respondents 1-3, it is for the trial court to proceed in
accordance with law.
V. PATIL ) September