VARUN JAIN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application as well as on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the delay in filing the revision petition ought to be condoned. This application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the State have been heard. I did not deem it necessary to issue any notice to the respondent Nos 2 to 5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he found sufficient material for issuing notice under Section 160 IPC against all the accused including the present petitioners. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC is not at all made out against the present petitioners even on the basis of the materials produced by the complainant. Section 159 defines affray to mean ? when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray. Section 160 IPC provides for the punishment for committing affray. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos 2 to 5 were the aggressors and they entered the petitioners' shop and caused damage as a result of which the petitioners also suffered injuries. He submits that this is not a case of affray but a case of assault and robbery. However, the present case was instituted on the basis of the complaint of SI Jaipal who, on receiving information, had arrived at the spot and found the present petitioners as well as some of the respondents abusing each other and scuffling with each other on the public road in front of shop No.608/3 which, according to him, was creating public nuisance and hindrance to the public and, therefore, he arrested four persons on the spot. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police arrived at the scene on the call being made by the petitioners that they were being assaulted/looted by the respondents. However, instead of registering a case on the basis of their complaint, they themselves have been accused in this case.

(3.) Insofar as the allegations go in the present case, the present petitioners along with the respondents were found to be quarreling on a public road and they were allegedly found to be causing disturbance to public peace.