- The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Anjani Gupta v. The State (NCT of Delhi) &Anr.(DL CRL.M.C.-2120/2018) has observed that there must be a prima facie appreciation of evidence along with application of judicial mind for a summoning order to be just and legal. There must be sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
- The given petition arose from the impugned Order dated 17th March, 2018, where it was held that a prima facie ground had been made out to allege that the Petitioner committed theft as well as the summon issued to the Petitioner were upheld by the learned Sessions Court.
- The impugned order was a part of one of the proceedings that has arisen out of matrimonial discord between two people which has also, led to filing of more than 50 criminal and civil cases between not only the husband and the wife but also their family members.
- Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Respondent had issued summon under Section 380 of the IPC for allegedly committing theft of certain letters belonging to the respondent no.2, while he was not present at his house. A revision petitioner against such order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on 17th March 2018.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the purpose of the complaint was just to harass the petitioner. The respondent no.1 has also been constantly denying right of residence in matrimonial home as declared by the appropriate court. The Revision Petition was dismissed solely on the basis of the testimony of two neighbours, who concealed the fact that the Police assistance was sought for Right of Residence as ordered but the efforts failed.
- It was submitted that mere picking up certain letters lying at the premises can’t establish theft. Since the property was petitioner’s matrimonial home, it could not have been presumed that all letters put in the mailbox of the premises belonged to the Respondent No. 2. He was not able to establish that the post mails belonged to him and further, he was not able to give a description of the said letters.
- The Learned Counsel appearing for of the respondent opposed the contentions and submitted that granting the Right of Residence was limited to the first floor of the premises. The Petitioner had brought a key maker to the premises and broke into the house which was in no manner permitted.
- The ground floor of the house was in possession of Respondent No. 2, and the letters were in his deemed possession and removal of the same without his consent and knowledge amounted to theft. There was a dishonest intention of the petitioner as no assistance was taken of the police or any authority in acquiring the letters.
- The Honourable Court, while referring to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, laid down that in the present matter, the concerned subordinate courts were to examine whether the very basic ingredients of theft under u/s 380 were being met by the Petitioner or not, while prima facie making out a case against her.
- There was a high probability that any letters coming into the home could have been addressed to the petitioner as well. The post box being located at the entrance, there is a possibility of the letters of petitioner being delivered in the same post box that was located on the ground floor.
- Hence no dishonest intention was established at the preliminary stage. So, a prima facie case could not have been made against the petitioner. Hence, the summon was held as invalid and erroneous. The impugned order was set aside.
"Loved reading this piece by Neeraj?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
