Full Text
Translation output
65# $- !
* IN THE HIGH COURT O_F DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.1\1.C. 2433/2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT O_F DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.1\1.C. 2433/2011
/o
RAMESH CHAND RAJPUT ..... Petitioner
RAMESH CHAND RAJPUT ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE&ANR
CORAM:
Through: l'v1r. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Vinod Kumar
Pandey and Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda, Advocates.
Through:
.-.... Respondents
__ Iv1r.. C.L. Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector M.L. Meena.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J:AUKTA GUPTA
29.07.2011
Crl. M.A. Nos. 8807/2011 & 8809/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. No. 2433/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No. 8808/2011 (Stay)
By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 211 ct February, 2011 issuing summons to him for offences under Sections 452/506/34IPC.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the compiaint given one day after the incident, that is, on 19th December, 2009. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that as per the complaint no allegation of trespass is made out though he has not been able to refute the allegations qua criminal intimidation.
CRL.M.C. 2433/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:10941
I have perused the complaint dated 19th December, 2009 and the statement of the witness C'¥1. In the statement made before the Court the
Complainant has clearly stated that on 18th December, 2009 at about 5.30 p.m. Accused No. 1, that is, the Petitioner herein along with accused nos. 2 and 3 and two other unknown persons forcibly entered her house. Accused
No. 1 was holding revolver in his hand and he started threatening her to vacate the property in subject otherwise they will kidnap and kill her son.
The mere fact that in the complaint dated 19th December, 2009 it is not explicitly stated that the Petitioner entered the premises does not show that there is no evidence against the Petitioner. It is well settled that the first information given to the police about the commission ofthe offence may not include the entire details. The reading of the complaint shows that the complainant meant that the Petitioner entered the premises because it is stated that on 18th December, 2009 at about 5.30 p.m. the Petitioner along with his two sons Raju and Amit and two others with his licensed revolver threatened that either give this plot to him or he will kidnap her children and thereafter they went. It is further stated that due to this shock her husband died after about 20 to 25 minutes.
I find no illegality in the impugned order summoning the Petitioner
CRL.JJ,i.C. 2433/2011
2-
-!, -!, for offence under Sections 452/506/34 IPC in view of the statement of the
Complainant. There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the Petitioner.
I find no merit in the petition.
Petition and application are dismissed.
~:GUPTA,J.
JULY 29, 2011/'vn'
CRL.M.C. 2433/2011 Page3 of3
Pandey and Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda, Advocates.
Through:
.-.... Respondents
__ Iv1r.. C.L. Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector M.L. Meena.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J:AUKTA GUPTA
29.07.2011
Crl. M.A. Nos. 8807/2011 & 8809/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. No. 2433/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No. 8808/2011 (Stay)
By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 211 ct February, 2011 issuing summons to him for offences under Sections 452/506/34IPC.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the compiaint given one day after the incident, that is, on 19th December, 2009. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that as per the complaint no allegation of trespass is made out though he has not been able to refute the allegations qua criminal intimidation.
CRL.M.C. 2433/2011 Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:10941
I have perused the complaint dated 19th December, 2009 and the statement of the witness C'¥1. In the statement made before the Court the
Complainant has clearly stated that on 18th December, 2009 at about 5.30 p.m. Accused No. 1, that is, the Petitioner herein along with accused nos. 2 and 3 and two other unknown persons forcibly entered her house. Accused
No. 1 was holding revolver in his hand and he started threatening her to vacate the property in subject otherwise they will kidnap and kill her son.
The mere fact that in the complaint dated 19th December, 2009 it is not explicitly stated that the Petitioner entered the premises does not show that there is no evidence against the Petitioner. It is well settled that the first information given to the police about the commission ofthe offence may not include the entire details. The reading of the complaint shows that the complainant meant that the Petitioner entered the premises because it is stated that on 18th December, 2009 at about 5.30 p.m. the Petitioner along with his two sons Raju and Amit and two others with his licensed revolver threatened that either give this plot to him or he will kidnap her children and thereafter they went. It is further stated that due to this shock her husband died after about 20 to 25 minutes.
I find no illegality in the impugned order summoning the Petitioner
CRL.JJ,i.C. 2433/2011
2-
-!, -!, for offence under Sections 452/506/34 IPC in view of the statement of the
Complainant. There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the Petitioner.
I find no merit in the petition.
Petition and application are dismissed.
~:GUPTA,J.
JULY 29, 2011/'vn'
CRL.M.C. 2433/2011 Page3 of3
,.!'
JUDGMENT