Shashi Kumar Goyal Vs. State and ors.

Shashi Kumar Goyal vs State and ors.

Disposition Revision petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Oct 16, 2001

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/705696

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/705696
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: K.S. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Oct 16, 2001
Case Number: Crl. R. No. 335/2000
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case focused on the locus standi to file review petition with respect to Sections 397, 401 and 198-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 - The petition was filed by the complainant's brother - Neither the State nor the complainant had challenged the order of acquittal - It was ruled that petition was not legall...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120-B, 376, 406, 420, 495, 498-A and 511; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 198-A, 397, 401, 439, 439(5) and 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shashi Kumar Goyal

Advocate B.K. Sharma, Adv

Respondent

State and ors.

Advocate K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv., ; Arvind K. Gupta and ; M.L. Yadav

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120-B, 376, 406, 420, 495, 498-A and 511; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 198-A, 397, 401, 439, 439(5) and 482
Cases Referred: and S.P. Dubey v. Narsingh Bahadur
Reported In: 95(2002)DLT582; I(2002)DMC316

Excerpt

.....annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established......petition against the said order dated 3rd june, 2000. aforesaid section 198-a cr.p.c. which is material, reads thus:-'no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 498a of the indian penal code except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father's or mother's brother or sister or, with the leave of the court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.'3. above section falls in chapter xiii while sections 397/401 cr.p.c. under which present petition has been filed, in chapter xxx of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. it is true that certain categories of relatives of the person aggrieved by the offence under section 498-a ipc have also been empowered under section 198-a cr.p.c. to file complaint but, in my view, after the charge sheet based on complaint lodged by the person aggrieved is submitted in court by the police, the relatives cannot bank upon the provision of said section 198a to support their right to have revision petition filed under sections 397/401 cr.p.c. against an order made in the case by the trial court. first limb of submission advanced on behalf of petitioner, thus, deserves to be repelled being without any merit.4. coming to second limb of submission, in kavita's case (supra), party at whose instance power under section 482 cr.p.c. was sought to be invoked was the person who had lodged fir with the police. further, discussion in para no. 15 at page 791 of the report in pratap's case (supra) would reveal that it was in exercise of suo moto power of the court under old section 439 cr.p.c. that the question of imposition of penalty of death on the accused was considered by the apex court. again, in girdhari lal's case (supra), one of the points agitated in the revision petition was that sita ram, complainant did not have the right to file complaint under section.....

Full Judgment

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. This revision petition by Shashi Kumar Goyal is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 2000 passed by an Addl.Session Judge discharging accused/respondents 2 to 6 for the offences under Section 406/498-A/495/376/420/120-B/511 IPC.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by Sh. K.B. Andley appearing for respondents 2 to 6 that petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition as he is not the maker of FIR and Ms. Kavita, complainant who has since re-married, presumably is not willing to challenge the impugned order. While controverting the objection, it was contended by Sh. B.K. Sharma for petitioner that petitioner is the brother of complainant and if he could file a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A IPC on her behalf under Section 198-A Cr.P.C., he can also file this petition. As part of submission, it was further contended that even a private party has locus standi to file revision petition. Reliance was placed particularly on the decisions in Kavita v. State and Ors., 1999 III AD (DHC) 713, Pratap v. State of U.P., : 1973 CriLJ565 , Girdhari Lal v. Sita Ram and Ors., 1988 All.L.J. 930, Rajendra Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors., and S.P. Dubey v. Narsingh Bahadur, : AIR1961 All447 . To be noted that State has not filed revision petition against the said order dated 3rd June, 2000. Aforesaid Section 198-A Cr.P.C. which is material, reads thus:-

'No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father's or mother's brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.'

3. Above Section falls in Chapter XIII while Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. under which present petition has been filed, in chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is true that certain categories of relatives of the person aggrieved by the offence under Section 498-A IPC have also been empowered under Section 198-A Cr.P.C. to file complaint but, in my view, after the charge sheet based on complaint lodged by the person aggrieved is submitted in Court by the police, the relatives cannot bank upon the provision of said Section 198A to support their right to have revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against an order made in the case by the trial court. First limb of submission advanced on behalf of petitioner, thus, deserves to be repelled being without any merit.

4. Coming to second limb of submission, in Kavita's case (supra), party at whose instance power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was sought to be invoked was the person who had lodged FIR with the police. Further, discussion in para No. 15 at page 791 of the report in Pratap's case (supra) would reveal that it was in exercise of suo moto power of the Court under Old Section 439 Cr.P.C. that the question of imposition of penalty of death on the accused was considered by the Apex Court. Again, in Girdhari Lal's case (supra), one of the points agitated in the revision petition was that Sita Ram, complainant did not have the right to file complaint under Section 498-A IPC and taking note of the provisions of Section 198-A Cr.P.C., it was held that he being the father of first wife of accused, was competent to file it on her behalf. In Rajendra Prasad Singh's case (supra), revision petition was held to be maintainable at the instance of informant who was an aggrieved party in the case. In S.P. Dubey's case (supra), the petitioner was cited as witness in the complaint and from the discussion made in para No. 4 at page 449 of the report, it may be seen that while dealing with the issue of locus standi, it was held that Section 439(5) Cr.P.C. (Old) only prevented a revision being filed at the instance of a party who could have appealed and as the petitioner could not file a valid appeal not being the complainant, Section 439(5), obviously, could not operate against him. However, with respect, I am unable to agree with this reasoning as it would entitle even a stranger to the criminal proceedings to file revision which position may not be in consonance with the provisions of new Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. It may be noticed that barring S.P. Dubey's case, none of aforesaid decisions support the said submission that a revision can be filed by a party not even being the complainant as in present case.

5. For the foregoing discussion, upholding the objections taken on behalf of respondents 2 to 6, the revision petition is dismissed being not legally maintainable.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Shashi Kumar Goyal vs State and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120-B, 376, 406, 420...

Criminal