Kavita Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This petition u/s 397 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the Petitioner for quashing of summoning order dated 8th January 2010 in FIR No. 240 of 2007 u/s 336 of IPC pending trial in the court of learned MM, Delhi and summoning order dated 8th January, 2010 passed by learned MM.

The contention of the Petitioner is that she being the owner of the flat No. C-12-S, Vijata Vihar, Rohini (Sector-13), Delhi had undertaken repairs/ renovation work of her flat. The repair and renovation work was being done as per law without causing any harm to the Respondent/ complainant. However, the complainant was not letting the Petitioner to do the repair work despite Petitioner taking permission from the president of the society and despite municipal byelaws permitting such repair work. It is alleged that since the complainant was a retired ACP, he somehow got FIR registered with the police station and the learned MM wrongly summoned the Petitioner herein.

The Respondent''s contention is that since the flat of the Respondent was just below the flat of the Petitioner, in the garb of repair she had in fact dug out roof causing substantial damage to his house.

Both the sides have placed on record materials to fortify their stand. While the Petitioner is taking the stand that no damage has been caused, the Respondent on the other hand is taking the stand that substantial damage has been caused to his flat.

I consider that this issue whether any damage has been caused to the house of Respondent because of the repair work undertaken by the Petitioner or not cannot be decided by this Court by entertaining this revision against the summoning order. In fact, this disputed issue of fact has to be decided by the trial court itself and the trial court alone after taking evidence can come to conclusion whether the offence as alleged was committed by the Petitioner or not and if the allegations made by Respondent/ complainant were truthful or false. It is not a case where trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing summoning order or taking cognizance of the offence. Nor it is a case where trial court acted illegally warranting interference from this Court. A revisional court u/s 397 Cr.P.C cannot shift trial of the disputed facts to itself. The disputed facts have to be decided by the trial court only on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of perusal of documents which are yet to be proved and veracity of which is yet to be decided before the trial court.

I, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

List this matter now on 4th April, 2011 for appearance of Petitioner in person.