Ishwar Devi vs Vinod Kumar and Others

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The prayer in this petition filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and to the judgment (Annexure P-2) dated 30.08.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order (Annexure P-3). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondents were resident of the same locality. They had the dispute over a drainage meant for discharge of filthy water from the street. The said dispute had reached up to the consumer forum and a direction was issued to the respondents to restore the said drainage. Even a complaint was filed in terms of Section 133, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal. On 07.4.2009 at about 8 AM, the respondents alongwith Krishna w/o respondent No. 4, and Anil Kumar came to her house and called bad names to her. They also told that they would not allow her to restore the drainage. The respondents intimidated her. The petitioner and her husband went to the Police Station, City, Kaithal, on 07.4.2009 but to no avail.

On 07.4.2009 at about 5 PM, the respondents again came to her house and used ugly words in a loud voice. After making entry into her house, Vinod and Krishan Lal caught hold her by hairs and thereafter Vinod gave a blow on her breast by means of a wooden plank. Krishan Lal gave fists and slaps on her face and uttered that she would be taught a lesson for moving an application in the police station. Respondents No. 2 and 3 also gave her slaps and fist blows. Ganga Bishan, while passing through the street, came at the spot and saved the petitioner from the clutches of the respondents. The respondents also quarreled with the son of the petitioner and intimidated the petitioner that in case she presented any other application to the police or any court, then she would be done to death.

The petitioner-complainant filed the criminal complaint before the learned Area Magistrate and led preliminary evidence.

After hearing the complainant, the learned Area Magistrate dismissed the complaint inter alia on the following grounds :-

The summoning of the accused without material evidence amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and encourages filing of frivolous complaints.

Before passing the order of summoning, the Court has to be of firm opinion that prima facie an offence was committed by the persons proposed to be summoned.

Ganga Bishan was a tutored witness. He had not seen the occurrence, therefore, his statement had no evidentiary value.

The occular version of the complainant was contrary to the medical evidence. The complainant had not lodged the report with the police regarding the present occurrence.

There was colossal delay in lodging the report with the Court.

The report sought from the police in term of Section 202, Cr.P.C. revealed that no occurrence took place at the spot as alleged by the petitioner-complainant.

The criminal revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the above said two orders passed by the learned Area Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously examined the material available on record.

Issuing process in a criminal complaint to face trial is a serious matter since the liberty of a person is involved. The Court has to apply mind and after scanning the material available on record come to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out for summoning of a person, then only the process can be ordered to be issued. The learned Area Magistrate had meticulously examined the material available on record and recorded good reasons for the dismissal of the complaint. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, also scanned the material and thereafter concurred with the order passed by the learned Area Magistrate. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that the two courts below after examining the record had disagreed with the submissions of the petitioner, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.