Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001177-2025
CC No. 38/2025
FIR No. 07/2017
PS : Nand Nagari
State v. HC Yogender
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the question of framing of
charge against the accused persons.
2. Arguments on the point of charge have been heard on
behalf of both the sides. I have duly considered the
submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light
of material available on record.
3. Case of the prosecution, as mentioned in the main charge-
sheet and the material filed therewith, is as under:
3.1 During the intervening night of 25/26.11.2016, a
PCR call vide DD No. 10B dated 26.11.2016, was
received at PS Nand Nagari, which was entrusted to
SI Sonal Raj for necessary action. Accordingly, SI
Sonal Raj alongwith HC Vijender reached reached at
the spot i.e. Tahirpur T-Point, Nand Nagari, Delhi,
where PCR vehicle Baker-44 was found stationed.
HC Mahesh Dutt (gunman) and HC Yogender
(driver)(accused herein), Ct. Sunil (I.C.B.-44) and
one public person namely Sh. Shakeel (driver of Tata
Magic bearing registration no. DL-1L-W-3322) were
found present at the spot. HC Yogender and HC
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 1 of 11
-- 1 of 11 --
Mahesh Dutt were found in injured condition and
thus, both were medically examined at GTB Hospital
and their respective MLCs were collected. On the
MLC of HC Mahesh Dutt recited history of physical
assault at 02:00 am at Tahirpur.
3.2 SI Sonal Raj recorded statement of Sh. Shakeel,
wherein he interalia stated that while he was coming
from Gazipur Mandi during the intervening night of
25/26.11.2016 and reached at Tahirpur Red Light at
about 02:00 am, the driver of PCR Van gave him
signal to stop the vehicle. Accordingly, he stopped
the vehicle and alighted from it and went near the
driver of PCR Van, whose name, later on, was
revealed as HC Yogender (accused herein), who
demanded entry of Rs.50/- from him. When he
handed over the GC note of Rs.50/- to HC Yogender,
HC Mahesh Dutt came to HC Yogender and
enquired as to why he had taken money from driver
of Tata Magic vehicle and ultimately, heated
arguments exchanged between them, during which,
HC Mahesh Dutt gave abuses to HC Yogender, on
which, HC Yogender took out Danda kept in PCR
Van and gave blow on the hand of HC Mahesh Dutt.
On the basis of said statement, the present FIR came
to be registered u/s 7/13 PC Act and 186/332/353
IPC, at PS Nand Nagari and investigation was
entrusted to ACP Sushil Tyagi.
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 2 of 11
-- 2 of 11 --
3.3 It is further the case of prosecution that during
investigation, IO recorded statements of witnesses;
collected PCR calls; copies of Duty Roster dated
25.11.2016 from PCR Unit and final opinion on
MLCs of both the injured persons, as per which,
nature of injuries was opined to be ‘simple’.
3.4 It is further the case of prosecution that accused HC
Yogender was previously involved in case FIR No.
3/2015, u/s 7/13(1)(d) of PC Act, PS Vigilance and
was dismissed from services, vide order dated
24.01.2018. Accused was got joined in the
investigation and he was interrogated by the IO. On
13.03.2024, complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. for
prosecution of accused was received from Legal Cell
of PCR Unit, whereafter, IO requested for sanction
u/s 19 of PC Act against accused, which was granted
by the Competent Authority on 19.04.2025.
Thereafter, IO also applied for grant of prosecution
sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. qua accused, which was
ultimately granted on 30.05.2025.
3.5 It is further the case of the prosecution that complaint
u/s 195 Cr.P.C. dated 06.03.2024, has also been filed
by the concerned Authority and same is annexed
with the chargesheet.
Arguments:
4. After referring to the case of the prosecution as mentioned
in the main charge-sheet and the material filed therewith,
Ld.PP vehemently argued on behalf of State that there is
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 3 of 11
-- 3 of 11 --
sufficient material available on record, which makes out
prima facie case for framing of charge in respect of
offences u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of PC Act,
1998, as also the offences u/s 186/332/353 IPC against the
accused. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
statement of complainant namely Sh. Shakeel, which led to
the registration of FIR in this case; statements under S. 161
Cr.PC of relevant witnesses including that of complainant
namely Shakeel, HC Mahesh Dutt Sharma (victim),
SI Sonal Raj, Ct. Sunil etc. recorded during investigation;
sanction under S. 19 of PC Act and complaint under S. 195
Cr.PC filed alongwith chargesheet. He, therefore, urged
that charges in respect of aforesaid offences may be
framed against the accused.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel of accused vehemently argued
that there is no sufficient material filed along with main
charge-sheet so as to make out any prima facie case for
framing of charge in respect of any of the offences alleged
against the accused. He contended that it is nowhere the
case of prosecution that any sting operation of alleged
money transaction was conducted and/or there is any
audio-video recording of such alleged money transaction.
He further submitted that the accused has been got falsely
implicated in this case at the behest of HC Mahesh Dutt,
both being posted in PCR Van, B-44 on the
alleged time and date of the incident in question.
He, therefore, urged that accused may be discharged in
this case.
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 4 of 11
-- 4 of 11 --
Analysis & Conclusion:
6. Before dealing with the rival submissions made on behalf
of both the sides, let’s have a look on the legal proposition
at the stage of charge.
7. In case of ‘Settu v State of NCT of Delhi’, bearing CRL.
REV. P. 13/2022 dated 10.03.2022, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has observed that:
“xxxx
8.It is well settled law that at the stage of
framing of charge, the court has power to shift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against accused has been made out. When the
material placed before the court discloses great
suspicion against the accused, which has not
been properly explained, the court will be
justified in framing charge. No roving inquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence
is not to be weighed as if a trial was being
conducted. If on the basis of materials on record
a court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case of framing of charge exists.
9.To put it differently, if the courts were to think
that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame a charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
accused has committed the offence. At the stage
of framing of a charge, probative value of the
materials on records cannot be gone into, the
material brought on record by the prosecution
has to be accepted as true at that stage. The
truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which
the prosecutor proposes to adduce, are not to be
meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be
attached to the probable defence of the accused.
It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of
the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a
sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not.
10.The standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a finding
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 5 of 11
-- 5 of 11 --
regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is
not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding
the matter under Section 227 or under Section
228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there
is a strong suspicion, which leads the court to
think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it is not
open to the court to say that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
While deciding the question of framing of charge
in a criminal case, the court is not to apply
exactly the standard and test which it finally
applies for determining the guilt or otherwise.
11. What is required to be seen is whether there
is strong suspicion, which may lead to the court
to think that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence. The above
proposition is supported with law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court
reported as “Union of India vs. Prafulla
Kumar”, AIR 1979 SupreANALYSISme Court
366, “State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som
Nath Thapa and other” JT 1996 (4) SC 615,
“State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh”, AIR 1997 SC
2018: (1997 CRI LJ 1606), “Umar Amdula
Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic
Control Bureau” JT 1999 (5) SC 394, “Kalu Mal
Gupta vs. State” 2000 I AD Delhi 107.
xxxx”
8. It is well settled legal position that the prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has
only to see whether prima facie case is made out against
the accused. In this regard, it has been held in the case of
‘Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander’, reported as 2012 (9)
SCC, 460 as under:
“19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge,
the court is concerned not with proof but with a
strong suspicion that the accused has committed
an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him
guilty. All that the court has to see is that the
material on record and the facts would be
compatible with the innocence of the accused or
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 6 of 11
-- 6 of 11 --
not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at
that stage.”
9. Similarly, while dealing with the scope of S. 227 and 228
of the Code and the limitations imposed upon the Court at
the initial stage of framing the charge, Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of ‘State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh’, reported as
(1977) 4 SCC 39, has held as under:-
“Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as
they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning
and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect
of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are
not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be
attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not
obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider
in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the
facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of
the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which
is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding
the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be
applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227
or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to
see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the
accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction.
Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in
the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his
guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if
there is a strong suspicion, which leads the court to think that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed
an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
presumption of the guilt of the accused, which is to be drawn
at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the
trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is
presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is
only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the
court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence
which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce a to prove the guilt
of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in
cross-examination or rebutted by the defence, if any, cannot
show that the accused committed the offence, then there will
be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An
exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will
lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor
advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by
one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused are something like even at the
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 7 of 11
-- 7 of 11 --
conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt
the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it
is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227
or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and
generally the order which will have to be made will be one
under Section 228 and not under Section 227."
10. A three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of ‘Suptd. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja’, reported as (1979) 4 SCC
274, reminded the Courts that at the initial stage of framing
of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence.
The Court has, therefore, to consider the question of
framing the charges on general considerations of the
material placed before it by the investigating agency. At
this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment,
which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and
judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an
accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at
the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a
strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court
can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in
that event be justified in framing the charges against the
accused in respect of the commission of the offence
alleged to have been committed by them.
11. Thus, at the stage of charge, neither the probative value of
the evidence nor the sufficiency of material is to be gone
into. Whether the trial would eventually result into
conviction of the accused or not is also not material.
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 8 of 11
-- 8 of 11 --
12. In view of above legal proposition, lets examine the facts
of the present case.
13. As already noted above, FIR in question came to be
registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Shakeel s/o
Sh. Wahid, who, as per the case of prosecution, was
driving Tata Magic Vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1L-W-3322, during the intervening night of
25/26-11-2016 at about 2:00 a.m., and was got stopped by
the accused herein, he being posted as driver in PCR Van
stationed near Red Light of Tahirpur, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri. In the said statement, the
complainant has categorically alleged that after he was
made to stop his vehicle, the accused had demanded entry
fee of Rs.50/- from him, which, he had to pay to the
accused. Not only this, he also alleged therein that another
PCR Van official namely HC Mahesh Dutt in the same
PCR Van, also came there and questioned accused as to
why he had accepted the bribe money of Rs.50/- from
driver of the said Tata Magic Vehicle, on which, altercation
took place between HC Mahesh Dutt and accused, during
which, accused took out danda from said PCR Van and
inflicted injuries on the hands of HC Mahesh Dutt.
Accordingly, HC Mahesh Dutt made PCR Call at
100 number, on which, PCR Van came there and took HC
Mahesh Dutt and accused to GTB Hospital for their
medical examination. He (Shakeel) categorically alleged
therein that accused HC Yogender had received bribe
money from him in illegal manner and prayed for taking
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 9 of 11
-- 9 of 11 --
legal action against him. The complainant Shakeel has
prima facie corroborated the aforesaid allegations even in
his statement under S. 161 Cr.PC recorded on 03-03-2017
during the course of investigation. Further, the said
allegations are also duly corroborated by another
PW namely HC Mahesh Dutt in his statement under
S. 161 Cr.PC dated 04-02-2017 recorded during the
investigation. Not only this, the prosecution has also relied
upon MLC of HC Mahesh Dutt (victim), wherein he is
shown to have received certain injuries in the form of
tenderness on right hand dorsal side; and abrasion and
tenderness above left wrist lateral side. According to said
MLC, the nature of injuries is opined to be simple.
14. Needless to say that victim namely HC Mahesh Dutt was
on duty in PCR Van stationed near Red Light of Tahirpur
and thus, he was public servant within the meaning of
S. 21 IPC. There has been categorical allegations against
accused, which are supported by evidences in the form of
statements under S. 161 Cr.PC of witnesses and MLC of
victim HC Mahesh Dutt, which would prima facie show
that accused had voluntarily obstructed HC Mahesh Dutt in
discharging his official duties and caused hurt by using
criminal force with intent to prevent him in discharging his
official duties.
15. Apart from above, the prosecution has also relied upon
complaint under S. 195 Cr.PC lodged by the then ACP,
Eastern Range, PCR Unit, Delhi for initiating proceedings
in respect of offence under S. 186 IPC against HC
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 10 of 11
-- 10 of 11 --
Yogender (accused herein). Further, the prosecution has
also relied upon Sanction under S. 19 of PC Act for
prosecution of accused in respect of offences under S. 7/13
of PC Act.
16. There is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf
of accused that in the absence of sting operation and/or
audio-video recording of the alleged incident, accused is
entitled to be discharged in this case. While finding force
in the submissions made on behalf of State and keeping in
view the evidences as referred hereinbefore and while
applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court
and Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding the considerations
to be kept in mind at the stage of framing of charge, and in
view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of
the opinion that prima facie case is made out for framing of
charge in respect of offences under S. 7 and 13(1)(d) read
with S.13(2) PC Act, and S. 186/332/353 IPC, against the
accused namely HC Yogender.
Announced in the open Court
on 10th Day of July, 2026.
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RACC/NEW DELHI
CC No.:38/2025, FIR No.:7/2017, PS:Nand Nagri Page 11 of 11
-- 11 of 11 --