Final Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: Tarun Singh Ray Vs. State & Ors.
	Page no.1
of 5
IN THE COURT OF SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 243/2025
Sh. Tarun Singh Ray
S/o Late Sh. Deen Bandhu,
R/o H. No. B-226, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi-110091
..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. State
2. Sh. Narayan (Complainant)
S/o Sh. Hariom,
R/o H. No. C-13, Kali Bari Mandir,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110091
Also at: Village Palera Beedri
Tehshil & PS Palera,
District Tikamgad, M.P.
3. Sh. Pappu (Injured)
S/o Sh. Malku
R/o H. No. C-13, Kali Bari Mandir,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110091
..........Respondents
Date of institution : 01.09.2025
Judgment reserved on : 22.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 22.05.2026
-- 1 of 5 --
Tarun Singh Ray Vs. State & Ors.
	Page no.2
of 5
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the revision challenging the order of
Ld. Trial Court dated 22.07.2025, whereby the charge was
framed against the revisionist and the accused Bhola Prasad
Gupta, under Section 288/337/338/34 IPC, will be decided.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the victims namely Narayan
and Pappu were digging soil in Kalibadi Mandir for the
construction work. While digging the soil, victim Narayan told
the contractor/accused Bhola Gupta that soil was damp and it
was not safe to dig the soil without safety measures but the
accused Bhola Gupta did not pay heed to his request and while
digging the soil, a wall suddenly fell on him and another victim
Pappu, causing simple injury to victim Pappu and grievous injury
to victim Narayan.
3. An FIR was registered and after completion of the
investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Bhola
Prasad Gupta for the offence punishable under Section
288/337/338 IPC whereas revisionist was not charge sheeted and
he was named as a suspect in the charge sheet.
4. Vide the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court framed charge
against the accused Bhola Prasad Singh and against the
-- 2 of 5 --
Tarun Singh Ray Vs. State & Ors.
	Page no.3
of 5
revisionist as well. Hence, this revision.
5. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist was
not named in the FIR and the accused/contractor Bhola Prasad
Gupta was getting the construction work done under his
supervision; that the accused had no role in the construction work
in which, the victims were injured; that the revisionist was named
as a suspect only in the charge sheet but without a speaking
order, the charge was framed against him and that the revisionist
had not even been summoned, as per law to face the trial.
6. Per contra, Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.1 and
counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant/victim namely
Narayan (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) and
respondent no.3 argued that the revisionist had been supervising
the construction work and therefore, it was the responsibility of
the revisionist to take necessary safety measures for the
construction in order to safeguard the workers from any injury.
7. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the trial
court record including the written submissions.
8. In the instant case, charge sheet was filed under Section
288/337/338 IPC. It means that as per Section 2(w) of Cr.PC, it
was a summons case. In trial of summons cases, the particulars of
-- 3 of 5 --
Tarun Singh Ray Vs. State & Ors.
	Page no.4
of 5
the offence is stated to the accused and the accused is asked if he
pleads guilty or has any defence to make. However, a formal
charge is not to be mandatorily framed.
9. It means if the final report has been filed against an
accused, the accusations levelled against him in the final report
has to be stated to him.
In the instant case, the revisionist was not named as an
accused in the final report. Moreover, in the final report, no
accusation has been levelled against him. Contrarily, in the final
report, it is mentioned that no evidence was found against him to
arrest him and he was named only as a suspect.
10. In the instant case, the final report was filed with a delay
and the application for condonation of delay was allowed vide
order dated 28.04.2025 and the cognizance of the offence was
taken.
Though the revisionist had been named only as a suspect,
no reason was given by the Ld. Trial Court for summoning the
revisionist an accused.
Further, when there was no accusation against the
revisionist in the final report, the substance thereof could not
have been stated to him.
11. There was no accusation against the revisionist in the
charge sheet but if the Ld. Trial Court was of the view that the
-- 4 of 5 --
Tarun Singh Ray Vs. State & Ors.
	Page no.5
of 5
material available on the record was sufficient to proceed against
him for the offence, a reasoned order explaining the reasons
thereof should have been passed.
12. In the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has only observed
as under:-
“Based on material on record, prima facie charge for
offence u/s. 288/337/338/34 is made out against both the
accused. Accordingly, charge for the said offence is framed
against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.”
13. Having discussed as above, this court is of the view that
the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 is incorrect only to the
extent vide which charge was framed against the revisionist and
is accordingly set aside. The revision is allowed.
14. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. File be
consigned to record room, as per rules.
(Subhash Kumar Mishra)
Additional Sessions Judge-03,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi
22.05.2026
-- 5 of 5 --