Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: SC No. 449/2024
State Vs. Sunny & Ors.
FIR No. 382/2024
PS Welcome
21.11.2025
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused Sunny and Rinku @ Chola Chotu present
in person on bail.
Accused Shivam @ Nitesh produced from JC.
Sh. Pradeep Agarwal, Ld. LAC for accused Shivam
@ Nitesh and Rinku @ Chola Chotu.
Sh. Ashraf Ali, Ld. Counsel for accused Sunny.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. It is argued by Ld. LAC and counsel for the accused
persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present case
and there was no motive for the accused persons to commit such
crime with the victims and accused persons had not robbed the
complainant/victim nor used any weapon. Accused Shivam @
Nitesh had not used any weapon (desi-katta). They had not
caused any injury to any victim. Accused Sunny and Rinku @
Chola Chotu were not found any possession of robbed articles
and nothing has been recovered from them. There is no CCTV
covering any offence by the accused persons and there is no CDR
to connect them with crime. They had not acted in furtherance of
their common intention.
2. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused persons
had acted in furtherance of their common intention to rob the
complainant Kaif and victim Arjun after showing country made
pistol (desi-katta). Accused persons had robbed three mobile
Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
phones and Rs. 65,000/- of complainant Kasif and accused
Shivam @ Nitesh showed the pistol. Accused Sunny and Rinku
@ Chola Chotu were found in possession of robbed mobile
phones of complainant Kasif and victim Arjun.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
record.
4. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant
Kasif alleged that on 11.06.2024 at about 11:29 pm, he was
closing his restaurant at Babarpur, along with his co-workers,
then suddenly, two boys came in the restaurant and pushed him
and his co-worker Vivek and took out three phones from the
counter and one of those boys forcefully took Rs. 65,000/- cash
from the drawer and fled away. The incident was captured in
CCTV camera and found that accused persons used pistol for
committing robbery.
5. During the course of investigation, accused Sunny
was arrested on 22.06.2024 by Crime Branch and later formally
arrested in the present case. One robbed mobile phone was
recovered from his possession and seized. During TIP, the
complainant identified accused Sunny, who picked up mobile
phones from the counter while his associate pointed a pistol.
CCTV footage, eye-witnesses statements, and confession of
accused Sunny clearly corroborate his active involvement. His
disclosure also revealed the roles of co-accused Rinku and
Shivam @ Nitesh in the said robbery. They all acted in
furtherance of their common intention. Recovery of robbed
mobile phones was effected from accused Rinku and Sunny.
Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
6.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 (3) SCC 4 laid down the principle
of law applicable at the stage of framing of charge. It was held
that:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2)Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceedings with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that
the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will
be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the
Code of Judge which (sic) under the present Code is a senior
and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean
that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.”
Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
7. In
Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2014) 13 SCC 137, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held
that
for framing charge u/s 228 Cr.PC, the judge is not required to record
detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and
hearing of parties, if the judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient
ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by
the Court of Session.
8. In
Kanti Bhadra Shah & another Vs. State of West
Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
while exercising power u/s 228 Cr.PC, the judge is not required to record his
reasons for framing the charges against the accused.
9. All the contentions of Ld. Counsel for accused
persons are matter of trial.
10. Considering the charge-sheet and other materials on
record, prima-facie charges u/s 392/34 IPC is made out against
the accused Sunny, Rinku @ Chota Chotu and Shivam @ Nitesh,
charge u/s 397 IPC is made out against accused Shivam @ Nitesh
and charges u/s 411 IPC is made out against accused Sunny and
Rinku @ Chola Chotu.
11. Formal charge framed accordingly, to which accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PWs Kasif and Ct. Hariom (mentioned at Sl. No. 1
and 6 in the LOW) be summoned through SHO concerned for the
next date.
Put up for PE on 02.03.2026.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
21.11.2025
Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --