1

Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.

HRSO01001466-2019.

IN THE COURT OF DR. SANJEEV ARYA,

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SONIPAT.
{UID HR0246}

Crl. Rev. No.29 of 2019.

CNR No.HRSO01001466-2018.
Date of Institution: 16.02.2019.
Date of Decision: 23.08.2023.

1. Neelam, aged 43 years, wife of Manjeet and daughter of Maman.

2. Virender aged 36 years son of Maman, both residents of

Rameshwarpuram, Gali No.1, near Samta Satsangshala, near
village Kabirpur, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

…Revisionists-complainant.

VERSUS
1. Ashok son of Rajender,
2. Manoj son of Rajender,
3. Suman wife of Virender and daughter of Rajender,
4. Sunita w/o Basant and daughter of Rajender r/o village Sultanpur
Dabas, new Delhi-110039.
5. Neelam daughter of Rajender,
6. Rajender and 4-5 other unknown persons, all except No.4, resident
of village Mahipalpur, near New Domestic Airport, Delhi.

….respondents – accused.

Criminal revision against the order dated 31.01.2019

passed by the Court of Shri Nishant Sharma, then
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat.

Argued by: Shri Anil Kumar Antil, Advocate for the revisionists-
complainant.
Shri Naveen Sehrawat, Advocate for respondents.

JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision petition is preferred against the order

dated 31.01.2019, whereby complaint u/ss 120-B,148,323,506/149 IPC

was dismissed without summoning the respondents No. 1 to 6 as accused.

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023
 2
Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.
Dis-satisfied with the impugned order, complainants as revisionists filed

this revision. Upon notice, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6

have put in appearance. TCR has been collected.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as

counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6 and have perused the record with their

assistance meticulously.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that incident

took place on 17.07.2017, in which respondents No. 1 to 6 accompanied

with 5/6 unknown persons came and raised altercation and inflicted

injuries to complainants. It has further argued that injuries on the person

of complainant are duly elaborated in their MLR. It has also argued that

report u/s 202 Cr.PC would reveal about the incident but despite that trial

Court did not summon respondents as accused to face inquiry u/ss

323/149 IPC etc. It has also argued that although marital dispute between

complainant no.2 Virender and his wife Suman { Arrayed as respondent

No.3} was going on since 2014 and if his wife received injuries in the

quarrel, even then, incident is proved but testimonies of CW1 to CW4 ws

not properly appreciated and prayed for setting aside the impugned order,

directing trial Court to summon respondents No. 1 to 6 as accused, by

allowing this revision petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6

has vehemently argued that initially respondent No.3 had lodged FIR

No.66 dated 22.02.2014 against complainant and other family members

and in that case, vide judgment dated 02.03.2019, they were acquitted.

The copy of said judgment is placed on file. It has further argued that

quarrel between complainant No.2 and his wife {respondent No.3} used

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023
 3
Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.
to take place time and again over marital issues and so complainants were

nursing grudges to shift undue burden upon legally wedded wife Suman

{respondent No.3} and her family members and as such, this complaint

was instituted on 02.01.2017 as a counter blast of FIR No.66 of 29014. It

has also argued that quarrel took place on 14.07.2017 between husband

and wife, in which, respondent No.3 was beaten mercilessly and received

injuries and her MLR was prepared and for that incident, her family

members had tried to settle marital dispute, but, complainants had shifted

burden by procuring MLRs against Suman and her family members

though such simple injuries may be received by falling or striking with

hardsurface and so, question of commission of crime as alleged do not

arise at the hands of respondents. It has urged that trial Court has applied

its mind while deciding question of summoning of respondents as accused

judiciously and as such, there is no scope of interference in the impugned

order and prayed for dismissal the present revision petition.

5. Having considered the contentions and perusing the entire

record including impugned order, it is found that there were running

marital dispute since 2014 between revisionist / complainant No.2 and his

wife Suman as arrayed respondent No.3 in complaint. It is evident that

respondent No.3 Suman had lodged FIR No.66 dated 22.02.2014 against

her husband and his family members. Thereafter, they were acquitted vide

judgment dated 02.03.2019. However, during the trial, complaint was

instituted relating to incident dated 17.07.2017. The report u/s 202 Cr.PC

from concerned police station was collected. For the sake discussion if

family members of Suman visted in house relating to resolve incident

dated 14.07.2017 in which Suman received injury from hands of

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023
 4
Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.
complainants over marital issue, even then, it would not lie in the mouth

of revisionists to say that Suman and her family members raised quarrel

rather it may safely presume that due to marital discord between

complainant No.2 and respondent No.3, he opted tactics to file complaint

as a counter blast of FIR No.66 dated 22.02.2014 lodged by respondent

no.3. It is the trial Court who has to appreciate entire preliminary evidence

of CW1 to CW4 after applied its mind judiciously in one way or the other

and came to conclusion that no prima facie case for summoning of

respondents as accused is made out while passing impugned order.

6. It would be appropriate to mention here that the exercise of

judicial authority is not show of strength, but a duty to be performed with

humility and yet firmness. If summoning order is passed in such case

mechanically, then it would definitely amount of curtailment of a person's

liberty with the sledge of a hammer, which does not concur with judicial

discretion vested while exercising criminal power by Courts. It has

always been emphasized that Courts administering justice on criminal

side must always remain alive to the presumption of innocence, which is

the hallmark of the criminal jurisprudence and thus a natural consequence

is that the aim of any criminal proceeding is not to humiliate or harass the

person. In G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000

(1) RCR (Criminal) 707 (SC), it is observed that it is the duty and

obligation of the criminal Court to exercise a great deal of caution in

issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil

nature. In Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 (4)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 548 (SC), it is observed that the Court must ensure that

criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023
 5
Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.
seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the

accused. In Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012(2) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 794 (SC), it is observed that Once the Magistrate has

exercised its discretion, it is not for the High Court, or even Supreme

Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to

examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the

allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in

conviction of the accused.

7. It is quite settled preposition of law that complainants are

required to bring sufficient material against a person, who may be

summoned to face inquiry in criminal case, as summoning order cannot

be passed mechanically. In case, summoning order is passed without

having substantial material mechanically, then it would amount to misuse

the process of law and would also encourage frivolous complaints u/s 200

Code of Criminal Procedure. It may not be out of place to mention here

that it is the trial court, who has to see the substantial material whatsoever

put forth by complainants before summoning any person as accused in a

criminal case.

8. Looking into entire facts and circumstances, it can be safely

said that trial court has considered the entire preliminary evidence, while

passing impugned order, in right perspective. Thus, this Court does not

see any illegality or infirmity or irregularity while non summoning the

respondents as accused. In this way, the preliminary evidence adduced by

complainant and overall facts and circumstances do not make out any

scope of interference by this court in this revision having exercise of

limited powers.

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023
 6
Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.
9. No other point is left for discussion.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion emanating from record,

instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. A copy of judgment be

placed on trial court's file for information. TCR be sent back for

consignment, whereas, revision file be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Court: (Dr. Sanjeev Arya)

23.08.2023. Additional Sessions Judge,
(Virender shamra) Sonipat.

Note: All pages of this judgment are signed by me.

(Dr. Sanjeev Arya)

Additional Sessions Judge,
Sonipat.

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023
 7
Neelam & Anr. Vs. Ashok & Ors.
Present: Shri Anil Kumar Antil, Advocate for the revisionists-
complainant.
Shri Naveen Sehrawat, Advocate for respondents.

TCR received and attached. Learned counsel for the

respondents advanced remaining arguments in this revision. Let file be

put up after lunch for pronouncement of order.

(Dr. Sanjeev Arya)

Additional Sessions Judge,
(Virender shamra,JW) Sonipat. 23.08.2023

Present: Shri Anil Kumar Antil, Advocate for the revisionists-

complainant.
Shri Naveen Sehrawat, Advocate for respondents.

Orders pronounced. Vide my separate judgment of even

date, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. A copy of judgment

be placed on trial court file for information. Trial court's record be sent

back for consignment, whereas, revision file be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Court: (Dr. Sanjeev Arya)

23.08.2023. Additional Sessions Judge,
(Virender shamra,JW) Sonipat.

{Dr.Sanjeev Arya}
ASJ, Sonipat
23.08.2023