R K MISHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482. Cr. P.C., the petitioners seek to challenge the illegality and impropriety of the summoning order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Court of Shri Kuldeep Narain. M. M., New Delhi and the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by Shri P. S. Teji, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in exercise of his revisional powers.

(2.) The brief facts as set out by the respondent complainant in her complaint filed before the concerned Magistrate are as under: The Respondent No, 2 -Complainant is employed with Pusa Polytechnic, New Delhi as a lecturer and also holds an additional post of Chief Security Officer of Pusa Campus whereby she was entrusted the job to remove the unauthorized structures and constructions within the campus of ITI Pusa. On the intervening night of 10/11.03.2007 complainant's car namely Maruti Alto, which was parked in front of house of the complainant caught fire. The complainant and her 12 years old daughter saw the car burning and as per their version the petitioner had put fire in the petrol pipe of the car and when they raised alarm, they were threatened by the petitioners with dire consequences to be told that the next target could be the complainant or her daughter if she did not stop her action of removal of encroachment. The complainant called the Fire Brigade also and they filed a report dated 11.3.2007. It is the case of the complainant that she approached the SHO as well as higher officials and also applied through RTI for the registration of an FIR but her appeal was disallowed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner of Police vide order dated 02.04.2007. Aggrieved with the same the complainant made a complaint to the court of Ld. MM and vide order dated 19.7.2007 the court of MM summoned the present petitioners. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners preferred revision which was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.11.2007 and feeling aggrieved with the same present petition has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Tiku, & Manish Tiwari, argued that the instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and has been instituted by the complainant/respondent No.2 as she had been nursing personal grudge against the petitioners for the reasons best known to her as would be evident from the other circumstances as well. It is alleged by the petitioners that the complainant/Respondent No.2 misled the trial court and has deliberately concealed the factum of filing of a Civil Writ Petition on the same set of allegations and imaginary story being W.P. (Civil) No. 4162 of 2007 wherein she sought investigation of the case. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Ld. M. M. failed to appreciate that deposition of CW-1 and CW-2 are in contradiction with each other since CW-2 has stated that she had informed her mother after seeing her car being burnt whereas CW-1 the complainant/Respondent No.2 in her statement stated that she had seen all the three persons running away after burning her car, and such contradictory statements have no incriminating value qua the petitioners. Moreover, the Ld. M.M. failed to appreciate that even the so called independent witness CW-3 clearly stated that nobody had told him that the petitioners had put the car of the complainant/respondent No.2 on fire, the counsel contended. The counsel for the petitioners further urged that subsequently CW 3 stated that he does not know much about the instant case and therefore the independent witness, who was examined by the complainant/respondent No.2 failed to give any strength to her case. It is further stated that the Ld. M.M. failed to appreciate that along with his report, SI Jaipal Singh has placed on record the letter written by the complainant/respondent No. 2 herself to the SHO P.S. Inderpuri, New Delhi admitting the fact that she had not seen any one at the site of the incident nor she had any doubt On any one who could be held responsible for the said incidence. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Ld. M.M. erred in disbelieving the report of two independent Government agencies and believed the version of the complainant/respondent No.2 as gospel truth. Counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions.