Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE – 05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 15/2025
Smt. Kaushalya Devi (Mother of deceased)
w/o Late Dharam Dev Sharma
r/o H.No. G-245, Street No.8/30,
West Karawal Nagar, Dayalpur,
North East, Delhi-11004. …….Revisionist
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi …… Respondent
Date of Institution : 10.01.2025
Date of Arguments : 03.02.2025
Date of Decision : 03.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated
03.04.2024 passed by Ld. MM-07 whereby the Ld. M.M. had accepted
the death verification report qua accused Roshan Sharma and the file was
consigned to Record Room.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the mother of the
accused Roshan Sharma namely Kaushalya Devi, who is aggrieved
against the said order which has been passed contending that the said
impinges her right to challenge the investigation carried out and in a
manner an affirmative seal has been put to the investigation which has
been conducted -
shoddily by the Investigating Officer. Accompanying
the revision petition there is an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act,
Cr. Rev. 15/2025 1/5
Kaushalya Devi v/s State
-- 1 of 5 --
2
1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
3. TCR was called.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for
revisionist as well as on behalf of State.
5. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application U/s 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 and further in the larger interest of justice the
same is allowed.
6. The facts are as here under :
IO had filed the chargesheet against the accused Roshan
Sharma s/o D.D.Sharma as
abated. Chargesheet was filed U/s
279/337/304A IPC. Further perusal of the record reveals that cognizance
was taken on 13.07.2023 in terms of the following order :
'Chargesheet perused.
Prima facie there is sufficient material on record to
proceed further. Accordingly I take cognizance of
offences mentioned in the charge sheet.
Issue summons to accused to appear in person on the
next date of hearing.'
6.1 The facet that this accused was already expired was mentioned
in the challan/chargesheet itself. In such circumstances issuance of notice
was of no use. Still notice to the accused was directed.
A further perusal of the record reveals that insofar as the
Cr. Rev. 15/2025 2/5
Kaushalya Devi v/s State
-- 2 of 5 --
3
incident in question is concerned, the case was registered on the basis of
the information received from the hospital i.e. on the DD entry whereafter
the IO had reached at the spot and found a car bearing no DL- 5CK-1043
and one motor cycle bearing no. DL-5SBM-9817 lying in accidental
condition. Leaving a constable to guard the site, IO had reached the
hospital wherein he found the injured under treatment. Accordingly the
case FIR was registered by him.
6.2 During the course of investigation it was recorded that the
pillion rider Saurabh Kishore who was on the motor cycle had sustained
injuries and the driver i.e. Roshan Sharma too was injured and later on he
succumbed to his injuries. Other witnesses were also examined by him
namely Lalit Kumar Mishra, Rampreet Mahto, Ashok Sharma and Raj
Kumar Malhotra with respect to the incident in question. The IO had
concluded in the charge sheet that the investigation reveals that the
deceased Roshan Sharma was the accused and was sent for trial for the
offences U/s 279/337/304A IPC and since he had expired the charge sheet
was sent as abated.
7. In these circumstances it is one of those cases wherein the
accused Roshan Sharma was sent for trial for the offences U/s
279/337/304A IPC wherein the fatality was of his only. All such facts to
my mind seems to have been ignored or glossed over by the Ld. MM at
the time of taking cognizance. In fact the order whereby cognizance was
taken particularly for the offence U/s 304A IPC should have spelled out
such facts that the accused Roshan Sharma had caused the accident and
during the accident he had expired - in such circumstances at least if this
Cr. Rev. 15/2025 3/5
Kaushalya Devi v/s State
-- 3 of 5 --
4
charge sheet would have been filed or accepted there could not have been
any cognizance qua the said offence U/s 304A IPC.
8. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist contends that the accident took
place due to rash and negligent act of the car driver but for the reasons
best known to the IO he had taken the easy way out and blamed the
injured/deceased.
In my opinion substantial Court proceedings took place when
Covid was there and Court functioning was hindered. Suffice to note
herein that insofar as the contentions in the revision are concerned she
wishes to assail the findings of the IO/challenge the same.
9. I have two options - (i) direct the revisionist to file a separate
complaint case or (ii) set aside the impugned order granting her liberty to
agitate all such pleas before the Ld. MM. The injured has expired. The
charge sheet is against the injured now deceased. Directing filing of a
complaint case would be tardy and in that scenario also the opinion of the
IO/chargesheet would still be there.
The ends of justice would be met if the revision petition is
allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Ld. MM to allow the
revisionist to file application/protest particularly challenging the version
of the Investigating Officer. No other point has been dealt in, in the
instant revision petition.
With the aforesaid observation the revision petition is disposed
Cr. Rev. 15/2025 4/5
Kaushalya Devi v/s State
-- 4 of 5 --
5
of. File be consigned to Record Room. TCR alongwith copy of the order
be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
Pronounced in open Court
on 03.02.2025 (Sumit Dass)
Additional Sessions Judge -05
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi.
Cr. Rev. 15/2025 5/5
Kaushalya Devi v/s State
-- 5 of 5 --