SUKHDEV KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order on charge dated 22.09.2005, which is impugned in this petition, cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is no discussion whatsoever with regard to even the establishment of a prima facie case under Section 307/34 IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

(2.) He submitted that on 26.09.1998, it is alleged that an incident took place at 14/6A, Mangal Bazar Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi for which an FIR of the same date was registered at the instance of the complainant [Om Prakash] against the present petitioners under Section 323/341 IPC. He submitted that in the said premises, the ground floor is occupied by one Rekha Ahuja. The first floor was occupied by the present petitioners as tenants. The second floor was in the occupation of the complainant [Om Prakash]. He submitted that there was some litigation between the said Rekha Ahuja and the said Om Prakash with regard to the ownership of the second floor of the said building. It is an admitted position that Rekha Ahuja was the owner of the ground floor and the first floor of the premises. He further submitted that after the registration of the FIR, one of the petitioners, namely, Dr Sukhdev Kumar filed a complaint with the police stating that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant [Om Prakash].

(3.) Subsequently, after about 9-10 months, on 09.07.1999, a complaint case was filed by Smt Santosh Chawla, who is the wife of the said Om Prakash. In this complaint case, for the first time, the allegations with regard to an offence under Section 307 IPC were mentioned. The court asked for a police report under Section 156 (3) CrPC pursuant to the said complaint case. As per the report submitted by the police, it is clear that an inquiry was conducted and statements of Smt Santosh Chawla and Om Prakash Chawla were recorded. It was the conclusion in the report that the complaint case relates to the very incident which took place on 26.09.1998 in respect of which there was already an FIR No.725/98 which had been registered and that there was no other medical document showing more or further injury than previously mentioned by the doctor in FIR No.725/98 to support the version of the complainant in the complaint case. It was, therefore, requested that the complaint case be filed.