Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 1 of 6
State Vs. Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva
CNR No.: DLCT01-010490-2025
SC No.: 478/2025
FIR No.: 99/2025
Under Sections: 221/132/121/109(1) BNS & 25/27 Arms Act.
P.S.: Crime Branch
01.11.2025
Present: Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Mr. Vineet Jain, Ld. Counsel for the accused,
namely, Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva.
Accused, Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva
has been produced from judicial custody.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused,
namely, Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva (
hereinafter
referred to as the ‘accused’) and that of Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, heard as well as records/material placed on record, have
been thoroughly perused.
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on
26.04.2025, secret information regarding a hardened criminal/the
accused herein, who was found absconding in a case pertaining
to an incident of gang rape in Delhi/PS. Nabi Karim and several
other grave offences in Delhi, was received from mukhbir
khaas/secret informer. It was determined on the basis of the said
information that the accused was scheduled to reach at Malik
Chicken Corner at Gali No. 9, Pusta Road, Wazirabad in a dark
blue colour Baleno car to meet one of his associates.
Consequently, on the basis of secret information, a raiding team
of NR-II, Crime Branch was constituted, which proceeded for
Pusta Road, Wazirabad to apprehend the accused.
Correspondingly, as per the prosecution, at around 08:25 p.m.,
the accused was determined to have arrived in blue Baleno car
-- 1 of 6 --
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 2 of 6
with registration no. DL-7CX-5988, near Malik Chicken Corner,
where he was identified by the secret informer. Upon this, the
concerned police official(s) approached towards the accused,
whilst declaring his/their identity(ies) as well as apprising the
accused that he was surrounded from all sides. However, the
accused, upon being so confronted by the police officials, is
asserted to have taken out a pistol and fired at the police
team/police officials, namely, HC Vikas and ASI Devinder, with
an intention to kill. However, the concerned police official, while
escaping the said gunshot, apprehended the accused after a
scuffle and recovered one pistol, loaded with five live cartridges
and one empty cartridge from the spot, which were seized.
Consequently, under said facts and circumstances, the instant
FIR came to be registered, and investigation ensued. Notably,
during the course of investigation, the MLCs of the accused and
that of victims/police officials were conducted and the CCTV
footage of the place of incident/spot was collected. Markedly, as
per the MLCs of the victims, nature of their respective injuries
were noted as ‘simple’.
3. At the outset, it pertinent to observe that the law is
settled1 that at the stage of framing of charges, neither can the
truth, veracity and effect of the prosecution case be meticulously
judged, nor can any weight to be attached to the probable defence
of the accused. On the contrary, at such a stage, only the
sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused, on a
general consideration of materials placed before the Court by the
investigating police officer is relevant. In fact, the probative
value2 of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the
1
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018
2
Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403
-- 2 of 6 --
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 3 of 6
material placed on record by the prosecution has to be accepted
as true at that stage. Relevantly, at the stage of framing of charge,
only the police report3 is required to be considered and the
defence of the accused4 cannot be looked into. Further, though,
sifting of evidence is permissible5, however, scanning of
evidence in detail is not. Concomitantly, it is trite law6 that the
inconsistency in the material produced by the prosecution or
defect in investigation7, cannot be looked into for discharge of an
accused, in the absence of full-fledged trial. Appositely the
Hon’ble Supreme Court8 in
State of Maharashtra v. Salman
Salim Khan, (2004) 1 SCC 525, unambiguously asserted in this
regard, as under;
“12. We are of the opinion that though it is open
to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section
482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial
court, same cannot be done by weighing the
correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case
praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to
be adopted by the High Court should be that if the
entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be
believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The
truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the
material produced at the time of framing of charge
can be done only at the stage of trial…”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Needless to further emphasize9 at the stage of
charge, court is not even required to record detailed reasons as to
why charge is framed, rather10, a very strong suspicion founded
3
State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad & Anr. v. P. Suryaprakasam, (1999) SCC (Crl.) 373; and
State of
Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568.
4
State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294.
5
State of Maharashta v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 393.
6
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476.
7
State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709.
8
Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Laxmi Narayan, 2023 SCC Online
Del 5064; and
Mandeep Gandhi v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2756.
9
Bhawna Bai v. Dhanshyam & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 217.
10
Supdt. and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52; and
Sajjan
Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368.
-- 3 of 6 --
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 4 of 6
upon materials placed before the Court, which leads it to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of
charges. In fact, it is a settled law11 that at the stage of framing of
charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction
is not the requirement. In fact12, it is only when no case is made
out even after presuming entire prosecution evidence, only then
can an accused be discharged13. Correspondingly, this Court
unambiguously observes that it is a settled law that mere defect
in investigation cannot be a ground for discharge. Reference in
this regard is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in
State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh
Ranjan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709, wherein the Hon’ble Court
in unambiguously remarked as under;
“32.4. While passing the impugned orders [N.
Suresh Rajan v. Inspector of Police, Criminal
Revision Case (MD) No. 528 of 2009, order dated
10-12-2010 (Mad)] , [State v. K. Ponmudi, (2007) 1
MLJ (Cri) 100] , the court has not sifted the materials
for the purpose of finding out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused
but whether that would warrant a conviction. We are
of the opinion that this was not the stage where the
court should have appraised the evidence and
discharged the accused as if it was passing an order
of acquittal. Further, defect in investigation itself
cannot be a ground for discharge. In our opinion, the
order impugned [N. Suresh Rajan v. Inspector of
Police, Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 528 of
2009, order dated 10-12-2010 (Mad)] suffers from
grave error and calls for rectification”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Ergo, being mindful of the aforenoted judicial
principles, in light of the arguments addressed by the Ld.
11
Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 424
12
Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633
13
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715.
-- 4 of 6 --
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 5 of 6
Counsel for accused as well as that by the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, this Court outrightly observes that the from the facts and
circumstances of the case, material and the documents placed on
record, including the contents of the chargesheet, statement(s) of
witnesses, the seizure/recovery memo(s), CCTV footage,
photographs, MLCs of the victims as well as accused, complaint
under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023/BNSS, and other material placed on record,
prima facie
case under Sections 22114, 121(1)15, 13216 and 109(1)17 of the
Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS and Section 27 of the Arms
Act stands established against the accused, namely, Javed Malik
@ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva. Further, from the perusal of case
record, it is revealed that there is strong suspicion and sufficient
ground(s) to proceed against the accused, besides there are
witness(es) who can depose against him. In so far, as the
contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding the lack
of injury on vital part body part18 or absence of forensic evidence
to ricochet the charges under Section 109(1) IPC are concerned,
the same do not find favour with this court in view of the settled
judicial precedents19. Simultaneously, this Court unambiguously
observes that it is a settled law20 that mere defect in investigation
cannot be a ground for discharge. Congruently, the contention of
the Ld. Counsel for the accused pertaining to inconsistency in the
evidence/material placed on record or that of the CCTV footage
14
Pari materia with Section 186 IPC.
15
Pari materia with Section 332 IPC.
16
Pari materia with Section 353 IPC.
17
Pari materia with Section 307 IPC.
18
State of M.P. v. Harjeet Singh, (2019) 20 SCC 524
19
S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1093; Veer Bahadur Singh v. State, 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 8223; State of M.P. v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605; and Surinder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh),
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1135.
20
State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709.
-- 5 of 6 --
FIR No. 99/2025
Page No. 6 of 6
not explicating the utterance of any warning sign by the police
officials or that of false implication of the accused in the instant
case, are all, in the considered opinion of this Court, subject
matters of trial, which cannot be delved into detail at this stage.
6. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, charges
under Sections 221, 121(1), 132 and 109(1) of BNS and Section
27 of the Arms Act are framed against the accused, namely,
Javed Malik @ Jaidev @ Sunny @ Pouva. The said charges are
read out to the accused in vernacular language and upon the
accused comprehending the same, he has pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Needless to mention that this Court is refraining
from framing charges under Section 25 Arms Act at this stage, in
the absence of FSL report and necessary sanction, being
forthcoming at the this stage.
7. List for PE on 26.12.2025.
8. Issue summons against PW SI Balraj (S. No. 1), PW
SI Devinder (S. No. 2) and PW SI Rajbir (S. No. 4) along with
the concerned IO for the next date of hearing.
(Abhishek Goyal)
ASJ-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
01.11.2025
-- 6 of 6 --