RUPAK MUDGAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 5.9.2003 directing framing of charges against them under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 506 (Part-II) read with Section 34, IPC in the case FIR No. 12/01, P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as 'the first case'). State has filed a reply opposing the prayer and has pleaded that on the report lodged by petitioners' father Shri P.C. Mudgal, Advocate, a counter case vide FIR No. 17/01 under Sections 323, 354 and 34, IPC was registered, which is also pending trial (hereinafter referred to as, 'the cross-case'). On 20.5.2005, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that parties were nerghbours and, on request, they were granted some time to settle the matter. File of the cross-case was also summoned.

(2.) In the first case, prosecution allegations, in brief, are as follows: Petitioners are residents of 60, Todarmal Road, New Delhi. On 11.1.2001, on receipt of information about a quarrel at 62, Todarmal Road, Police reached the spot and took the injured Vishal Gupta to the RML Hospital for treatment. As per the MLC, he was admitted in the hospital at about 11.00 p.m. and was found bleeding from the nose. X-ray of nasal bone and skull was advised. On the basis of DD No. 27-A, ASI Devi Dayal of P.S. Tilak Marg reached the hospital and after Vishal Gupta was declared fit, his statement was recorded, wherein he stated that his uncle Sunil Iain was residing at 62, Todarmal Road, New Delhi. On 11.1.2001 at about 10.15 p.m., he along with his wife Mrs. Rachna Gupta had gone to his uncle's place and they were going out for a dinner; when his uncle took out the car from his bungalow, P.C. Mudgal's son pulled out his uncle from the car and started beating him; he rushed to save his uncle; at that time Rupak Mudgal (petitioner No. 1) gave a fist blow on his nose and Deepak Mudgal (petitioner No. 2) gave a danda blow on his back; Nini and Kavita (petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 respectively) also came there and assaulted him. They started pulling him towards their house to beat him. He was saved by his uncle with great difficulty. Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 threatened him that they would implicate him in a rape case and he would not be able to go back to Mumbai and nobody would be able to help. The complainant apprehended danger to his life and prayed for help and suitable action. On this statement, at about 1.15 a.m. on 12.1.2001, first case was registered. After investigations challan was filed on 2.12.2002, cognizance was taken. Petitioners were summoned and by impugned order dated 23.7.2003, prima facie case under above noted sections was found against petitioners and charges were framed. This order is under challenge.

(3.) In the cross-case, prosecution allegations are as follows : On 13.1.2001, Mr. Mudgal gave a written report to the Police making allegations of assault, threat and outraging modesty of his daughter Kavita. He accused nine persons namely, Sunil Jain, Siddharth Jain, Smt. Sulbha Jain, Vishal Gupta (complainant in the first case) and his wife Mrs. Rachna Gupta. Three other persons living in the same locality, namely, Deepak Madipuria, r/o. 2, Todar Mal Road; Rakesh Goyal and his son Anuj Goyal, residents of 9-A, Babar Road were also named alleging that they had joined the above six persons in the said assault. On this complaint, on 14.1.2001, cross-case was registered and after investigations challan was filed against six persons named above. However, investigating agency found that allegations against remaining three persons were not substantiated. This case is also pending trial. The perusal of the MLCs in the cross-case reveal that on 11.1.2001, Mr.Mudgal and his two daughters Nini and Kavita were also admitted in the RML Hospital at about 11.57 p.m. They were declared fit for statement by the attending doctor. It appears that Mr. Mudgal declined to make any statement. The letter dated 12.1.2001 addressed by Mr. Mudgal to SHO reads: "Most respectfully I submit that I have cataract in my left eye which is almost matured. My left eye had haemorrhage, in right eye also xxxx. I cant write my complaint at the moment as I am not heving my spectacles I am mentally also unfit to give my statement/complaint in my own handwriting. I shall give my detailed complaint in writing tomorrow (12-1-2001) after I get my spectacles. Thanking you." It appears that Mr. Mudgal gave written complaint on 13.1.2001 on the basis of which cross-case was registered on 14.1.2001. It is not necessary to examine the facts in detail, as the ther party is not before the Court.