Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-008867-2023
CR No. 258/2023
1. Smt. Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta
W/o Sh. Ravi Gupta
R/o D-685, 1st Floor, Sarswati Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
2. Sh. Shashank Vardhan
S/o Sh. S.V. Jain
R/o 305, 1st Floor, Sainik Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
…..Revisionists
Versus
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Ravi Gupta
S/o Late Sh. O.P. Gupta
R/o G-506, Bestech Parkview Ananda,
Sector-81, Gurugram, Haryana
….Respondents
Date of filing : 11.08.2023
Date of arguments : 10.11.2023
Date of Order : 10.11.2023
O R D E R
Vide the instant revision petition, the revisional
jurisdiction of this court has been invoked u/s 397 CrPC, assailing
the order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 13.07.2023 vide which, the
Ld. Trial Court, in Criminal Case No. 702/2019, FIR No. 605/2018,
CR No. 258/2023
Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
PS Prashant Vihar, titled as ‘State Vs. Nidhi Gupta & Anr.’, framed
the charge against the revisionists-herein/accused-therein, for the
offences punishable u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.
2. The brief facts, in a nutshell, which could be culled out
from the revision petition, and the trial court record, which has been
summoned, are that the revisionist No.1-herein is the wife of
respondent No.2-herein / Ravi Gupta, and revisionist No. 2 is
brother-in-law (Sala) of the respondent No.2. There are number of
litigations of matrimonial disputes between the revisionist No.1 and
respondent No.2 and his relatives.
3. The respondent No.2-herein namely Ravi Gupta
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) lodged a complaint
vide DD No. 20PP with Rohini Court Chowki, stating that on
14.08.2018, he had come to Rohini Court to attend the hearing in
court No. 7. Being a heart patient, he was feeling tired and weak and
since his item number was almost at the end of the cause list,
therefore, he left the court around 12.45 pm and purchased an ice-
cream from the vendor in front of court No. 18. Thereafter, he sat on
a bench between the court No. 18 and the SBI Bank to rest. The
complainant alleged that both the revisionists Shashank Vardhan and
Nishi Gupta approached him and started abusing him for no reason.
Shashank Vardhan, on being instigated by Nishi, physically
assaulted and threatened him with dire consequences. The
complainant further alleged that Shashank Vardhan held him by his
neck and threatened to finish him and his family members in case he
CR No. 258/2023
Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
did not accept their illegal demands. The complainant also stated in
his complaint that their movement must have been captured in
CCTV camera, installed outside SBI Bank entrance.
4. On the basis of said complaint, the FIR No. 605/2018
was registered u/s 341/323/503/34 IPC. Statement of the
complainant was recorded u/s 161 CrPC, and Notice u/s 41A CrPC
was served upon the revisionists-herein. After completion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Ld. MM, North
District, Rohini, Delhi. In the said case, the Ld. MM took
cognizance of the offence, and after hearing the arguments, vide
impugned order dt.13.07.2023, the Ld. Trial Court framed charge
against both the revisionists-herein, Nishi Gupta and Shashank
Vardhan, for the offence under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The revisionists have assailed the impugned order dated
13.07.2023, on the ground that the present FIR is a counter blast to
the FIR lodged by the revisionist No.2-herein against the
complainant and his advocates, who had physically assaulted the
revisionist No.2, and the said fact is also mentioned in the status
report, filed by the SHO PS Prashant Vihar. In the status report, it is
also clearly mentioned that no such incident had ever happened on
14.08.2022. Instead of making a call at 100 number for the alleged
incident, the complainant got the complaint typed, which was then
filed before the local police. The alleged incident happened in front
of court No. 18, which is a Mahila Court, but there is no witness to
CR No. 258/2023
Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
the incident despite the fact that the courts were working on that
day, and there remains huge rush during court working. The
revisionists have prayed, that the impugned order dated 13.07.2023,
be set aside.
6. I have heard the arguments extended by Sh. Swastik
Singh, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists and Sh. Girish Giri, Ld.
Addl. PP for the State/ respondent No.1, and I have also gone
through the TCR, which has been summoned, the documents, which
have been placed on record before the Ld. Trial Court and have
considered the rival contentions put forth by the parties. I have also
gone through the written submissions, filed on behalf of the
revisionists, material placed on record and the judgments cited by
the revisionists i.e.
(1) Smt. Kavita Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., in
Crl. Rev. P. 574/2016 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
on 15.09.2016;
(2) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., in Criminal
Appeal No. 192 of 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4708 of
2007), decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
27.01.2010; and
(3) Sashidharan Kollery and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. in Crl.
Rev. P. 630/2016, decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on
01.07.2019.
CR No. 258/2023
Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
7. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC
460, it was observed that the revisional court is empowered to call
for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. Object of this provision is to set right a
patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
8. It is, thus, evident that the revisional court has a limited
scope to examine the record/findings on the aforesaid parameters. In
this backdrop, when the impugned order dt. 13.07.2023 is perused,
it is apparent that the Ld. Trial Court, while framing charges against
the accused / revisionists-herein, has very cursorily disposed off the
application u/s 239 CrPC, which was moved on behalf of both the
accused / revisionists, seeking discharge. The said application u/s
239 CrPC dt. 13.07.2023, which is present in the trial court record,
is a detailed application, wherein certain contentions have been
raised, which also talks about the written submissions on the point
of charge being submitted, and certain judgments having been cited
in the application itself, have not been considered in detail, or if
considered, the conclusion of the Ld. Trial Court, has not been set
out in the impugned order in detail. The Ld. Trial Court might not
be mandatorily required to pass a lengthy detailed order on the point
of charge, but at the same time, if a formal application u/s 239
CrPC, seeking ‘Discharge’ happens to be moved by the accused
persons, a speaking order is definitely necessitated, while disposing
off the said application.
CR No. 258/2023
Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
9. Therefore, without going into the merits of the
submissions, which have been put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the
revisionists, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dt.
13.07.2023 suffers from an infirmity inasmuch as the application of
the accused persons, seeking discharge u/s 239 CrPC, has not been
disposed off, by a speaking order. The impugned order dt.
13.07.2023 is, therefore, set aside. The present revision petition is
accordingly allowed. The matter is remanded back, with the
direction to the Ld. Trial Court, to hear the arguments on the
application, afresh, and dispose off the said application u/s 239
CrPC, with a speaking order.
10. Nothing expressed herein, shall tantamount, to any
expression, on the merits of the case and the Ld. Judge will hear the
matter, as per law, without being influenced by any observations,
made in this order.
11. The revisionists are directed to appear before the Ld.
Trial Court, on the date already fixed i.e. on 22.11.2023.
12. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of
this order. The revision petition file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 10th November 2023
(Seema Maini)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CR No. 258/2023
Nidhi Gupta @ Nishi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --