KITABO Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition assails order dated 27th November, 2010 of learned ASJ, Dwarka District Courts whereupon the application of the petitioner under section 319 Cr. P.C. for summoning the accused namely Deepu @ Deepmala, Vijay, Kamlesh, Nanhe, Tare and Santosh was dismissed.

(2.) ON the complaint made by the complainant/PW-1 Smt. Kitabo, FIR No. 59/2003 was registered at P.S. Inderpuri against Nathu Ram Sarita Devi, Neeraj Kumar and Ajay under section 323/506/34 IPC. Though the names of the persons, sought to be impleaded, was mentioned in the complaint, but the police did not charge-sheet them.

(3.) IN the present case, it would be seen that the names of the aforesaid four persons sought to be impleaded were known to the complainant even at the time of incident on 7th June, 2002 and the filing of the complaint before the Magistrate. She also knew that in the FIR, their names were not included along with the other co-accused persons and so was in the charge sheet filed on 13th February 2005. The charges against the other four accused persons were framed by the Court on 4 th May, 2007. The statements of the petitioner/complainant and her Son Rocky (now deceased) were recorded on 7th September, 2007. From all these, it could be manifest that the petitioner was well aware about the alleged involvement of the aforesaid persons from the date of incident itself. The petitioner has chosen to remain silent and did not seek impleadment of the aforesaid persons till 25th November, 2010 when the application was filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. Having remained silent for about 8 years and not chosing to take any action for the impleadment of the aforesaid persons, it appears that the petitioner was not sure about her own case qua the aforesaid persons. No explanation has been given by the petitioner to justify the delay in filing such an application at the stage of nearing completion of trial. Now It is also informed that trials in both the cross FIRs, involving the petitioner and her family members and the accused persons have come to end in the Trial Court with all the parties being convicted and released on probation. The main case against the accused persons has come to end and the same having become final, no meaningful purpose would be served in otherwise allowing re-trial of the said FIR impleading new accused persons.