Dismissed

D.P. Mittal v. Ashwini Ram Nath

Delhi HC29 Aug 2024CRL.M.C./6725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a revision order that set aside a summoning order in a case involving seepage and public nuisance. The Court held that the petition, being filed after the BNSS came into force, should have been filed under the BNSS but treated it accordingly. It refused to interfere with the lower court's remand for a comprehensive Section 2

What the court decided

AI extract

D.P. Mittal Vs Ashwini Ram Nath — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~60

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 6725/2024 & CRL.M.A. 25684/2024

¶4

D.P. MITTAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Puneet Srivatava, Advocate with petitioner in court.

¶6

versus

¶7

ASHWINI RAM NATH .....Respondent

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 29.08.2024

¶10

CRL.M.A. 25683/2024

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed-of.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 6725/2024

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner impugns order dated 03.07.2024 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby, on a revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C., the learned ASJ has been pleased to set-aside summoning order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New

¶14

CRL.M.C. 6725/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:13:39

¶17

Delhi, insofar as the respondent is concerned, and has remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate “… … to obtain appropriate and comprehensive investigation/inquiry report u/s. 202 CrPC to ascertain the exact source of seepage in the flat of respondent no.1 … … ”.

¶18

Though the present petition has been filed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this court, on a plain reading of section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), proceedings are to be “ disposed of, continued, held or made ” in accordance with the Cr.P.C. only in cases where such proceedings , viz. “ any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation ”, were already pending immediately before the date on which the BNSS came into force, i.e. 01.07.2024. It appears therefore, that while inserting the repeal and savings provision in section 531 of the BNSS, the intention of Parliament was to not disrupt on-going proceedings by changing the governing law during the pendency of such proceedings.

¶19

Since the present petition has been filed after 01.07.2024, in the opinion of this court, the present petition ought to have been filed under the BNSS. Be that as it may, in order to obviate any unnecessary delay, the present petition is treated as one under section 528 of the BNSS.

¶20

Briefly, the matter arises from an allegation made by the petitioner, who resides on the ground floor of a block of DDA apartments, that by reason of negligent acts on the part of the residents of the 01^st floor and the 02^nd floor above him there has been seepage in his

CRL.M.C. 6725/2024

Page 2 of 4

apartment, which according to the petitioner’s amount to offences punishable under sections 269/290/426 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The petitioner had arrayed the resident of the 01^st floor as well as of the 02^nd floor above his apartment, as accused in the matter.

¶26

By way of the summoning order dated 30.06.2022 passed in Ct. Cases No. 5242/2021, the learned Magistrate had issued summons to the residents of both 01^st floor and the 02^nd floor, though for somewhat different offences. However, by way of order dated 03.07.2024, the learned ASJ has set-aside the impugned order only insofar as it relates to the resident of the 02^nd floor with a direction as noted above, since the learned ASJ found that in Inquiry Report dated 02.06.2022 the enquiry officer under section 202 Cr.P.C. had given a vague and ambiguous conclusion that “ … … the condition of the ground floor flat is in poor condition because of the seepage from upper floor flats of the alleged persons … … ”.

¶27

Evidently therefore the learned ASJ has taken the view that though the seepage, and the resulting public nuisance and negligent acts, could have arisen by reason of default on the part of resident of the 01^st floor, it needs further inquiry as to whether that was a result of default on the part of the resident of the 02^nd floor or whether it was by reason of some inherent defect in construction of the ground floor itself.

¶28

In the circumstances, especially the fact that by way of the impugned order the learned ASJ has only remanded the matter back for reconsideration by the learned Magistrate based on a more

CRL.M.C. 6725/2024

Page 3 of 4

comprehensive enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶33

The petition is accordingly dismissed in-limine.

¶34

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed-of.

¶35

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶36

AUGUST 29, 2024 ds

¶37

CRL.M.C. 6725/2024

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2024 at 12:13:39

D.P. Mittal v. Ashwini Ram Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

D.P. Mittal v. Ashwini Ram Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Kumar and Anr. Vs State through SHO Ps Naraina and Anr.

Rai Yuvraj Bains Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohammad Mustafa Vs M/S Bernard Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Simran Gupta and Anr. Vs UOI and Others

Hemant Sahni Vs Golden Lubes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Manish Shukla Vs the State of NCT of Delhi