RADESH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After investigation in FIR No.248 of 2008, the police filed a charge-sheet keeping the petitioners herein in Column No.2 as the persons not charge-sheeted and not arrested. However, vide order dated 10th September 2009, the learned MM took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to all the accused persons for their appearance on 7th January 2010. The said order is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the learned MM had not given reasons for summoning them despite the fact that the police had not found evidence against them and not charge-sheeted them. It is submitted that if the learned MM wanted to summon the accused persons, not charge-sheeted by the police, the learned MM was supposed to give reasons. Reliance is place on Neelam Suri v State,2008 1 JCC 593 and J.L. Goel v. Rajesh Kumar Jain, 2010 7 AD(Del) 666.

(2.) The abovementioned FIR was registered under Sections 326, 452, 506, 380 of IPC on 31st December 2008 on the statement of Kartar Singh. A quarrel had taken place at property bearing number B-222, Sainik Farm on the night intervening 27th and 28th December 2008 as there was a dispute over the ownership of the property. Kartar Singh seems to be a person who was working as servant of Smt. Vineet singh and her mother Inder Kaur. After this quarrel Kartar Singh was taken to the hospital. Since police was informed about the quarrel, the police also reached hospital. Kartar Singh did not make a statement to the police immediately and it looks that this was deliberate. It was not that Kartar Singh was not in a position to make statement but he refused to make statement and later on a written complaint was given by him to the investigating officer on the basis of which FIR was registered. The Investigating officer of the case while submitting charge-sheet reproduced the written complaint received by him from Kartar Singh after two days of the incident and observed that he visited the spot and searched for the eye witnesses but did not find any eye witness of the incident of quarrel. He interrogated Radesh Singh, Mrs. Reena Verma, Mr. Pooran Chand, Shri Vikram Singh and Rasvinder Singh and learnt that the property bearing number 17, Rajdoot Marg, Chanakaya Puri was subject matter of dispute amongst the legal heirs of Shri Mahinder Singh, who died intestate and there were allegations of fabrication of the Will and dispute about the property was pending before the High Court during which a settlement was arrived at in the High Court between the contending parties. However, since the mutation of the property had not been made despite passing of long time, Radesh Singh filed a claim before the High Court being CS(OS) No.1938 of 2008 and this claim was pending in the High Court.

(3.) The property was under the tenancy of US Embassy and it was vacated on 4th September 2008 and it seems that thereafter a tussle over the possession of the property ensued. It has come on record that U.S. Embassy offered to purchase the property and possession of a part of it remained with US Embassy on purchasing a share in the property from one of the owners. On the day of incident, it is alleged, Mrs. Vineet Singh had come to remove a geyser from her part of the property since she had sold it away to US Embassy. The Investigating Officer found that despite allegations of beating by several persons, the MLC of Kartar Singh showed no external injuries. Kartar Singh complained of internal injuries and for that doctors asked for x-ray report, but no signs of internal injuries were found. The Investigating Officer concluded that the allegations made by Kartar Singh of beating him and forcibly snatching the keys were not corroborated since no eye witness was found, no other evidence had come against the petitioners. He, therefore, kept the petitioners herein in Column No.2 and filed challan only in respect of one person.