The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), upholding the orders of a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) and an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) that dismissed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, concluded that the petitioner’s allegations of attempted murder, assault, and cheating were vague and lacked sufficient evidentiary backing to summon the accused.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Reema Arora, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents—Uttam Chand Meena, his wife Gargi Meena, and Mahinder Singh (a police official)—for offences under Sections 307/511/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
According to the petitioner, on September 9, 2009, she and her son were taken to a police station where Uttam Chand Meena and Gargi Meena were present, and a Sub-Inspector allegedly threatened her. After she returned home, Uttam Chand Meena allegedly abused her, threatened her to withdraw a pending case, and grappled with her, while Gargi Meena poured kerosene oil on her body. The petitioner claimed she raised an alarm, gathering her son and neighbors, and was subsequently taken to B.S.A. Hospital where her Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was recorded.
Additionally, the petitioner alleged that the accused persons, including Police Official Mahinder Singh, came to her house and took Rs. 6,000 from her to make her an agent of an “R.C.M.” company scheme. She alleged that neither the money was refunded, nor were any goods delivered.
The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint on January 22, 2019, citing insufficient material. A subsequent Revision Petition was dismissed by the ASJ on December 7, 2019, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to appreciate the MLC, which was proved by the Record Clerk Doctor from BSA Hospital (CW-2), corroborating her claim that kerosene was poured on her and she was grappled with. She further contended that the accused had taken Rs. 6,000 under the pretext of an R.C.M. scheme, and rather than refunding the money or delivering goods, they threatened to implicate her in false criminal cases.
Respondents: Respondent No. 3, Police Official Mahinder Singh, vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that he never met the petitioner or her family, had no connection with any R.C.M. scheme, and never received the alleged Rs. 6,000. He further stated he was never posted at P.S. Shahbad Dairy and that the petitioner’s averments were vague, bald, and made with mala fide intention.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna analyzed the evidence, particularly focusing on the medical records and the sequence of events. The Court noted several discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims:
- Medical Evidence and Delay: The Court perused the MLC (Ex. CW-1/A) and found no specific injury recorded by the examining doctor that could support the assertion of assault. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained delay of approximately 3.5 hours between the alleged incident at 09:00 AM and the lodging of the complaint at 12:35 PM.
- Missing Witnesses: The MLC reflected that the petitioner was taken to the hospital by her husband. However, the Court observed that the husband was never examined to corroborate the facts, nor was his presence or any action taken by him to confront the accused mentioned. Despite claims that neighbors gathered during the incident, no independent neighbor or eyewitness was produced.
- Vague Financial Allegations: Regarding the Rs. 6,000 payment for the R.C.M. scheme, the Court agreed with the MM’s observation that the complaint lacked material particulars. There was no date of payment, manner of payment, documentary evidence, receipt, or communication placed on record.
The Court emphasized the legal threshold required to issue process against an accused, observing:
“It is settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance on a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must be satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding. The existence of mere vague allegations, unsupported by prima facie material, does not mandate the summoning of the accused.”
Decision
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint as it did not disclose any prima facie offence, a decision correctly upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition along with all pending applications.
- Case Title: Smt. Reema Arora vs. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 831/2021
