Delhi District Court
Dinesh Kumar Goel vs State on 5 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. AMBIKA SINGH, ASJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 76/2021
DLWT01-003150-2021
DINESH KUMAR GOEL
S/o Late Sh. Kanti Kumar Goel
R/o B-6/5, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi.
.....Revisionist
Vs.
1. THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
2. PRATIBHA GUPTA
D/o Sh. Purushottan Gupta
R/o Flat No. 2, First Floor,
Jwalaheri Market, B-3,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
...Respondents
Date of institution of the cases : 08.04.21
Order reserved on : 22.02.24
Order delivered on : 05.03.24
ORDER:-
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the above mentioned criminal revision no. 76/2021 arising out of order dated 20.02.2020 CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 1 of 10 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-05), West, Tis Hazari Court in FIR No. 187/2016 in case titled as "State Vs.Dinesh Kumar Goel". The Ld. Trial court vide order on charge dated 20.02.2020 has passed the order that prima facie offence u/s 509/201 IPC is made out against the accused/revisionist herin.
2. Briefly, it is stated that the complainant/respondent no.2 was working as a teacher of chemistry and was posted in one of the institutes of FIITJEE, viz Paschim Vihar Centre, New Delhi and the revisionist herein is the Chairman of M/s FIITJEE. On 04.11.2014, a scuffle had taken place at the said Paschim Vihar Centre between the faculty members Vipin Kumar, Sunil Kumar and the complainant over personal issues arising from the past. Thereafter, a disciplinary Committee was constituted against the three erring employees including the complainant/respondent no.2 and further resulted in termination of services of Vipin and Sunil and complainant was transferred. Complainant being not satisfied, made a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 1073/14 was registered. However, the complainant kept hounding and harassing the Senior Management of the institution including the revisionist to get herself reinstated at the Paschim Vihar Centre and she never complied with the recommendation of the disciplinary committee and never reported to work at the new centre despite several requests and reminders and due to which she lost her job. Complainant held a grudge against the Senior officials and the revisionist and started to post-defamatory CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 2 of 10 material of social media and also tried to sabotage the smooth functioning of the institute to hold protest and Dharna outside the institute, later on the same was restrained by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge in favour of the revisionist. Further she also tried to contact the revisionist various platforms but the revisionist did not respond. On 15.04.2015, through Facebook by posting comment of a webpage titled as "Fans of D K Goel" a comment was made that "if you have been raped by a Muslim then please let us know, else do not post irrelevant comments. We have noted that you have gone to police and court and trying to defame various people. Women should be of good character. Using yourself as a woman and befriending the media and to get false report is not right. Your parents will be ashamed of you". Thereafter, the present case FIR No. 187/2016 was registered u/s 354A(iv)/506/509/201 IPC and vide order on charge dated 20.02.2020, the revisionist was discharged for the offence u/s 354A(iv)/506 IPC and charges were directed to be framed u/s 509/201 IPC.
4. While assailing the impugned order, the grounds taken by the revisionist that firstly, it is stated that the Ld. Trial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has acted illegally with material irregularities in abuse of process of law and is based it orders on surmises and conjectures. Secondly, it is stated that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the relevant material evidence. Thirdly, the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that the offence u/s 509/201 IPC are not CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 3 of 10 made out and that fact that the offending comment was not found by the investigating agency on the fan page of the revisionist coupled with the fact that they failed to get any response from Facebook regarding existence of comment and the admin of the said fan page and no action having been taken by the investigating agency to procure a letterogatory as per procedure in Cr.P.C and the same is malicious and unsustainable in law. Fourthly, that 509 IPC is not made out against the revisionist herein as the essential ingredients of the offence are missing and bare reading of the section postulated that the offence and the victim being in physical proximity and the offence is made when a word is uttered or sound is made to the hearing of the victim and the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of offence u/s 354 IPC and language of 509 IPC is also similar to Section 354 and the same is lacking in the present case. Fifthly, that no offence u/s 201 IPC can be made out as there is no evidence that the petitioner was responsible for deleting the comment from the webpage of Facebook. Lastly, the revisionist prayed that he may be discharged for the offence u/s 509/201 IPC and further he has filed authorities to substantiate his grounds.
5. Notice of the Revision was issued to the respondents on which the respondent entered appearance. TCR was also summoned.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued the matter and filed a reply stating that Ld. Trial Court in CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 4 of 10 exercise of its jurisdiction has acted illegally with material irregularities in abuse of process of law and is based it orders on surmises and conjectures and has failed to consider the relevant material evidence. Further that the investigating agency has failed to get any response from Facebook regarding existence of comment and admin of the said fanpage, that contention is a matter of evidence, the burden of proof will remain on the prosecution to prove its case and the same cannot be looked at this stage and also that Section 509 IPC is a remedy which is available to aggrieved women who is harassed online as well and the same is not limited to physical presence. Also, the respondent has denied the grounds as false and untrue. Further, failed to appreciate that the offence u/s 354A(iv)/506/509/201 IPC are made out against the revisionist herein.
6(i). Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued the matter and stated that there are sufficient material on ground to frame charge under alleged offences against the revisionist herein and he is liable to be prosecuted under the alleged offences.
7. It is well settled law that only the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the respondent/accused on a general consideration of materials placed before the court by the Investigating Police Officer are to be considered for framing of charge. Truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Same standard in appreciation of evidence as would be applied at the stage of CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 5 of 10 consideration of framing a charge. At that stage, even a very strong suspicion founded on materials before the Court which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the respondent/accused in respect of the commission of that offence. (See Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 SC 52; Nitaipada Das Vs. Sudarsan Sarangi & Anr. 1991 CrilJ 3012 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI 2010 (V) AD SC 157). Further, it is also settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, only the police report as referred to in Section 173 Cr. PC is required to be referred to. This aspect of the law has been adverted to in State Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and Another Vs. P. Suryaprakasam; 1999 SCC (Crl.) 373 where considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr. PC it was held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial court is required to, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. This position of law was reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446 has held as that, "It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 6 of 10 on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction".
9. Discussing the law on consideration of charge, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.P. Malik and Ors. vs. State, (1999) 81 DLT 92 has held as under:
"5. At the stage of framing charge the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other material relied by the police in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only has to be taken into consideration taking the evidence collected on its face value. At this stage the Court is not expected to screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on trial."
10. While discussing the power of the revisionist court, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 107, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
"3. ...The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 7 of 10 the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000 CriLJ 746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1189, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial."
12. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence and the prima-facie view of the matter is to be taken into consideration. It has to be seen that on consideration of the material on record, a prima-facie case is made out and/or grave suspicion exists about the involvement of the CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 8 of 10 respondent/accused in the crime alleged, it is expected to frame the charge and put the respondent/accused on trial. At such an initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not required to be meticulously judged, all that is required is, that the Court must be satisfied that with the material available, a prima-facie case is made out for the respondent/accused to stand trial.
13. Perusal of TCR shows that the Ld. Trial Court has taken into consideration all the material available and rightly passed the order to frame charges against the accused/revisionist herein Dinesh Kumar Goel of the offence u/s 509/201 IPC. Further that here are specific allegations against the revisionist. Whether the said page was operated by him or not is a matter of trial. Also, the said page was infact deleted or the comment has been deleted by him are a matter of trial. Under the statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C she has stated that she was working in FIITJEE and the Dinesh Kumar Goel was the owner and she was suspended from the institute after molestation by other colleagues and her salary was not released. Further she requested the owner/revisionist herein regarding her grievances but no heed was given. On 15.04.2014, owner Dinesh Kumar Goel commented on her facebook that "if you have been raped by a Muslim then please let us know, Women should be of good character. Using yourself as a woman is not right".Further she stated that pressure is being created on her to withdraw the case. At this CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 9 of 10 stage, the Ld. Trial Court has to arrive at a prima facie case against the revisionist which is clearly made out in the present case. The present Court is of the opinion that the Ld. Trial Court has applied its judicial mind while passing the impugned order dated 20.02.2020, taking into consideration, the material on record. And it cannot be said at this stage that the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court is unreasonable or unjustified calling for the interference by the present Court. I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Trial Court.
14. Revision petition is accordingly disposed of as dismissed. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the merits of the case. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the copy Digitally signed of this order. AMBIKA by AMBIKA SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.03.05 15:52:03 +0530 Announced in the open court (Ambika Singh) on 05.03.24 ASJ-02/THC/West/Delhi 05.03.24 CR No.76/2021 Dinesh Kumar Goel Vs. State Page No 10 of 10