Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLNW010100912024
Presented on : 18-10-2024
Registered on : 19-10-2024
Decided on : 19-10-2024
Duration : 0 years, 0 months,
1 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Rev/339/2024
HARSHIT WADHWA
S/o Sh. Ramesh Wadhwa
R/o GP-67, Pitampura, Delhi.
….Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
THE STATE
(NCT of Delhi)
….Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for petitioner : Sh. Anil K. Chhabra
Addl. PP for the State : Sh. Vineet Dahiya
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 19-10-2024)
1. Revision petition is filed against framing of charge against
the petitioners in pursuance of order dated 15.12.2023. The TCR
shows that Ld. Trial Court has framed charge against the
petitioner for offence u/s 323/34 IPC.
2. The order is impugned on the ground that there was no
allegation against the petitioner in complaint dated 13.06.2018
but his name was supplementary added on false statement made
before Ld. MM and despite the fact that IO issued notice u/s 91
CR.P.C for production of documents showing the payment of Rs.
11 Lakhs, the complainant failed. It is further stated that charge
against application not made out because there is no MLC
showing any injury.
3. The relevant portion of order of Ld. Trial Court is
reproduced here in below:
In case titled as
B. C. Upreti Vs. State & Anr., Crl. Rev. Petition
No. 316/2011, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that
“While framing charge, Magistrate is expected
to apply his mind to the facts of the case, keeping
in view the essential ingredients of the offence
for which the accused is sought to be cahrged.
The obligation to discharge the accused u/s 239
arises when the Magistrate considered the charge
against the accused to be groundless. The real
test for determining whether the charge is
groundless is to find out the materials available
on record, even if unrebutted, would not make
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
out any case whatsoever. The word ‘groundless’
means without any basis or foundation. Where
there is even a suspicion about commission of
offence, the charge cannot be stated to be
groundless.
It is well settled that at the stage of the
framing of the cahrge, no roving inquiry is to be
made nor the pros and cons of the materials
could be weighed in detail as it would
tantamount to a mini trial and such is not the
scheme of the Court. The reason for this is that
the prosecution ought to be allowed to bring its
evidence at the trial and the case ought not to be
shut out on the threshold when there is a
reasonable material for holding trial.”
On perusal of the entire chargesheet along with the
statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded u/s
161 CrPC and statement of the complainant u/s 164, it has
transpired that the complainant has levelled specific
allegations against both the accused persons that on
12.02.2019 at about 08:15 p.m, when the complainant and
her friend Anita had gone to the shop of the accused Ramesh
Wadhwa, both the accused persons have beaten the
complainant and her friend Anita. Therefore, both the
accused Ramesh Wadhwa and accused Harshit Wadhwa are
prima facie liable to be charged for the offence u/s 323/34
IPC.
Further, the complainant has levelled specific allegation
against accused Ramesh Wadhwa that he pressed the chest of
the complainant and had torn the suit (
kurta) of the
complainant. Therefore, accused Ramesh Wadhwa is prima
facie liable to the cahrged for the offence u/s 354/354-B IPC.
Accused Harshit Wadhwa is discharged for the offence u/s
354/354-B IPC, since no allegation qua Section 354/354B
IPC against him is forthcoming in the entire charge sheet.
Lastly, no specific allegation qua insulting the modesty of
complainant in terms of provisions of Section 509 IPC is
forthcoming from perusal of the chargesheet including the
statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. It has
been alleged that the accused used filthy language against the
complainant but no specific ‘word’ or ‘act’ or ‘gesture’ has
been mentioned. Therefore, both the accused persons are
liable to be discharged for the offence u/s 509 IPC.”
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
4. In Bhavna Bhai Vs. Ghanshyam (2020) 2 SCC 217, it has
been held by Hon'ble High Court that at the time of framing of
charge, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is
beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. At the
stage of framing of charge, the Court has to see if there is
sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. While
evaluating the materials strict standard of proof is not required;
only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.
5. In Soma Chakarvarti Vs. State (2007) 5SCC 403, it has
been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 10that
“It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as
mentioned in above decisions, is that if on the basis of
material on record the Court could form an opinion that
the accused might have committed offence it can frame
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence. At the time of framing of charge
the probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into, and the material brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”
6. On the scope of power of Higher Court in revision, it has
been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 that:
“8. Before examining the merits of the present case, we
must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of
the power which the courts including the High Court can
exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the
Code. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
power 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. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a
well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the
court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it
bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an
interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in
mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially
falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under
the Cr.P.C. Right from the case of State of West Bengal &
Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 561],
which was reiterated with approval in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335], the courts have stated the principle that if the
FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the
investigation on the basis of the information as laid or
received. It is further stated that the legal position appears
to be that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not
normally interfere with an investigation into the case and
will permit investigation into the offence alleged to have
been committed; if, however, the materials do not
disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be
permitted. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not,
must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
of each case. If on consideration of the relevant materials,
the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will
normally not interfere with the investigation into the
offence and will generally allow the investigation into the
offence to be completed in order to collect materials for
proving the offence. In Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the
Court also stated that though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein power under Section 482 of the Code for
quashing of an FIR should be exercised, there are
circumstances where the Court may be justified in
exercising such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR
does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not
disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by
the police; where the allegations are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code; and where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge. Despite stating these grounds, the Court
unambiguously uttered a note of caution to the effect that
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court also warned
that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice.”
7. Coming to the facts of the case, although complainant has
not mentioned about any act of the petitioner in the complaint on
which FIR was registered, but it is specifically mentioned to take
action against son of co-accused. The claim that name of
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
petitioner came for the first time in statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. as an improvement is not correct because the statement of
independent witness who was with the complainant on the date
of incident has specifically stated in her statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C., recorded on 13.02.2019, that the petitioner was also
present with his father and he alongwith his father gave beatings
to complainant. Therefore, there was sufficient material before ld.
Trial Court to frame charge under Section 323/34 IPC. Hence, I
do not find any illegality warranting any interference under the
revision.
8. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this
judgment be sent to ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
Date : 19.10.2024
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/19.10.2024
Dictated on : 19.10.2024
Transcribed on : 19.10.2024
checked on : 19.10.2024
Signed on : 19.10.2024
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/19.10.2024
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --