Delhi District Court
Satinder Yadav vs State Nct Of Delhi on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA
LD. ASJ-03, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Digitally
signed by
CNR No. DLWT01-004309-2023
SHIVALI
SHIVALI
SHARMA CR. No. 306-2023
SHARMA
PS- Paschim Vihar East
Date:
2025.03.11
16:53:52
+0530
U/s. 397 CrPC
IN THE MATTER OF:
(1) Satinder Yadav
(2) Shivender Yadav
Both S/o Late Sh. Dharampal Yadav
Both R/o WZ-56, Sarbati Niwas,
Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
.............Revisionists
VERSUS
(1) State of NCT of Delhi
(2) Complainant "N"
............Respondents
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 23.05.2023
Date of Reserving Order : 11.03.2025
Date of Order : 11.03.2025
REVISION PETITION U/s. 397 Cr. P.C. FOR SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.04.2023 OF
LD. MM (MAHILA COURT)-05 WEST IN FIR No. 605-2022
PS PASCHIM VIHAR WEST FRAMING CHARGES U/S
506/336/427/34 IPC AGAINST ACCUSED SATINDER
YADAV AND SHIVENDRA YADAV AND U/S 354 IPC
AGAINST ACCUSED SATINDER YADAV.
ORDER:
1. Revisionists have filed present revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 whereby Ld. MM(Mahila Court)-05 West had framed charges against them CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 1 /9 under the Sections mentioned above.
2. Revisionists Satinder Yadav and Shivendra Yadav are accused before Ld. Trial Court. State has been impleaded as Respondent in the present revision petition. After directions from this Court vide order dated 23.05.2023, complainant was pleaded as respondent no. 2 in the present revision petition. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.
3. Arguments on the revision petition heard. Record carefully perused.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that the present FIR was registered on a complaint dated 17.07.2022 made by complainant "N" wherein she alleged that she was a tenant in shop no. 1 and 1A, WZ-56/1, Paschim Vihar, Jwalaheri Market and was carrying on the business of readymade garments. She had made several complaints against her landlords that are the accused persons who had threatened to kill her and throw her out of the tenanted shop and demolish the same. It is alleged that accused Satinder Yadav had caught hold of her hand and threatened and misbehaved with her on earlier occasion and he used to stare at her regularly. The accused persons had also demolished her office. In the night of 12.07.2022, the accused persons had grilled holes on roof of her shop resulting in falling of false ceiling and damage to her articles. In this manner, they had tried to demolish the shop and attempted to murder her. The accused persons are willing to do anything to get the tenanted shop vacated and had been threatening her repeatedly. On 16th July, younger son of accused Satinder Yadav had entered her shop and made videos CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 2 /9 and threatened to kill her. Being scared and harrassed in this manner, she had filed the complaint seeking action against the accused persons.
5. On the basis of this complaint, present FIR was registered u/s 354/506/336/427/34 IPC. During investigation, statement of complainant "N" was recorded u/s 164 CrPC on 22.07.2022. After completion of investigation, accused Satinder Yadav and Shivendra Yadav were chargesheeted without arrest for commission of offences u/s 506/336/427/34 IPC. Accused Satinder Yadav was also chargesheeted for offence u/s 354 IPC. IMPUGNED ORDER:
6. After hearing the arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court held vide impugned order dated 10.04.2023 that a prima facie case u/s 506/336/427/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons. In addition, a prima facie case u/s 354 IPC was also made out against accused Satinder Yadav. Application filed by the accused persons seeking their discharge were dismissed as the grounds for discharge pleaded in the application were held to be a matter of trial which can be appreciated only after evidence is led by the parties. Charges were framed accordingly to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence.
GROUNDS OF REVISION:
7. The impugned order on charge has been challenged by accused persons on the ground that the impugned order is bad in law and without application of judicious mind and is thus, not tenable in the eyes of law. While passing the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has failed to apply the test as enumerated in various judgments pronounced by Superior Courts that whether the CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 3 /9 allegations and evidence brought on record, if goes unrebutted can lead to conviction. Proper investigation has not been done in the matter and chargesheet has been filed in a routine manner. Even if the allegations levelled by the complainant are presumed to be true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that while in her complaint dated 18.07.2022, the complainant is alleging that the roof of her shop was damaged by the accused persons in the intervening night of 12-13.07.2022, however, in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, she is alleging that the said incident had taken place in the intervening night of 12- 13.01.2022. This contradiction in the date of incident, in itself points towards the falsity of the allegations made in the complaint.
8. In addition to this, the allegations of offence u/s 354 IPC made in complaint dated 18.07.2022 do not find mention in earlier complaints made by the complainant dated 25.03.2022, 17.05.2022, 23.02.2022, 26.03.2022, 08.04.2022, NCR dated 02.05.2022 and kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC dated 15.07.2022. This is despite the fact that the alleged incident of offence u/s 354 IPC had allegedly occurred in the month of January, 2022. This again points towards the falsity of the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint/FIR.
9. Moreover, complainant is a habitual litigant and is in a habit of making false complaints. She has dragged her in laws in various false litigations such as FIR No. 320/2013 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden; FIR No. 392/2013 u/s 323/354/506 IPC PS Rajouri Garden; FIR No. 131/2015 u/s 420/468/471/120B/506/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden and complaint u/s 12 DV Act. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 4 /9 present FIR was nothing but a pressure tactic to ensure that the tenanted shop was not vacated from her.
10. In addition to this, she had modified her version of the incident at various stages making her complaint not worthy of belief. In addition to this, prior to present FIR, a vigilance enquiry had already been conducted on a complaint dated 21.04.2022 made by the complainant in which the allegations being made by the complainant were found to be incorrect and the matter was held to be that of civil nature. It is stated that the charges have been wrongly framed against the accused persons without there being any prima facie case reflected from the allegations. The offence u/s 427/336 IPC is not made out as there is no evidence of any damage collected during investigation. Allegations u/s 354 IPC are vague and without any specific date or time and are not supported by any earlier complaints. The allegations u/s 506 IPC fail to mention that any alarm was raised due to the alleged threatenings. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued in line with the grounds of revision and sought discharge of accused persons.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDITIONAL PP FOR THE STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
12. Per contra, the revision petition is strongly opposed on behalf of the State and complainant. It has been argued by Ld. Additional PP for the State that the impugned order is a well reasoned order passed on the basis of material available on record. Merely because there are certain contradictions regarding the dates in the original complaint and statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, it is not sufficient to discharge the accused persons CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 5 /9 when the allegations regarding the commission of offence are contained in both the statements. The complainant cannot be non- suited at initial stages without giving her an opportunity to prove the allegations made against the accused persons. As regards the previous litigations of the complainant detailed in the revision petition, the same are arising out of matrimonial disputes of the complainant and have nothing to do with the allegations in the present FIR. Accordingly, it cannot be made a basis for discharging the accused persons.
13. It is also submitted on behalf of the complainant that the allegations u/s 354 IPC are also contained in previous complaints of the complainant. One such complaint dated 22.03.2022 has been highlighted on behalf of the complainant which contains allegations of holding of hand and threatening of the complainant by accused Satinder Yadav. It is also submitted that the date of incident of damaging the roof of the tenanted shop has been wrongly mentioned as 12-13.01.2022 in the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC which is merely a typographical error, however, her complaint before the police and the photographs on record and the investigation done by the IO clearly reflect that the said incident had taken place in the intervening night of 12-13.07.2022. Merely wrong mentioning of the date in statement u/s 164 CrPC cannot be a ground to discharge the accused persons when all the other evidence regarding the said incident has been collected during investigation. It is submitted that in fact, the date of said incident has been wrongly mentioned as January, 2022 in the charge framed on 10.04.2023 u/s 506/336/427/34 IPC in place of intervening night of 12-13.07.2022. It is submitted that while upholding the impugned order, necessary directions for CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 6 /9 correction of charge to the extent of date of incident be passed. FINDINGS:
14. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the record as well as the statements of various witnesses recorded by the IO during investigation.
15. The scope of enquiry, a judge is required to make while considering the question of framing of charges has been considered by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4. After an exhaustive survey of the case law on the point, the Apex court has laid down the following principles:-
" (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 proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would be 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 produced 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 the Judge which 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 CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 7 /9 make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
16. Considering the overall material available on record, no infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned order dated 10.04.2023. The impugned order dated 10.04.2023 is a detailed and well reasoned order passed after considering all the materials and allegations against the accused persons. A bare perusal of order dated 10.04.2023 clearly shows that it has not been passed in a routine manner but after considering the allegations and evidence produced on record and giving detailed reasons for directing framing of charges.
17. I do not find any merit in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that merely because of a contradiction in the date of incident of digging holes in the roof of tenanted shop of the complainant in her original complaint when compared to her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, all the accused persons are entitled to discharge holding that the allegations are incorrect. Although, it is correct that no supplementary statement of the complainant u/s 164 CrPC was recorded during investigation in order to correct the date of incident, however, the contradictions in these dates can be explained by the complainant during evidence and merely because a different date is mentioned in statement u/s 164 CrPC when compared to all her previous complaints, it would not be appropriate to discharge the accused persons preventing the complainant from proving her case by leading evidence.
18. As regards the contention of the revisionist that the complainant had not made any allegations qua offence u/s 354 IPC against the accused Satinder Yadav in her previous complaints, the same can also not be made a ground for CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 8 /9 discharging the accused persons and an opportunity has to be given to the complainant to prove the allegations made by her in this regard. When they are specifically contained in the FIR and her subsequent statements. As regards the other cases filed by the complainant detailed in the present revision petition, they are admittedly litigations pertaining to matrimonial disputes of the complainant and cannot be made a basis for discharge of the accused persons by holding that complainant is a habitual litigant. Even the outcome of any vigilance enquiry cannot be made a basis of discharging the accused at initial stages.
19. After going through the entire record, statements of the witnesses and evidence collected during investigation, I have no hesitation in holding that charges have been rightly directed to be framed against both the accused persons under correct provisions of law. No infirmity or illegality is observed in the impugned order and no ground is made out for interfering with the same. No merit is found in the present revision petition. Same is accordingly, dismissed and impugned order dated 10.04.2023 is upheld.
20. However, it is noticed that the date of incident of digging the holes in the roof of the tenanted shop has been wrongly mentioned in charge as January 2022 in place of intervening night of 12-13.07.2022. Accordingly, the charge dated 10.04.2023 framed u/s 506/336/427/34 IPC needs to be corrected/altered to this effect. Ld. Trial Court is directed to frame an altered charge in terms of Section 216 CrPC before proceeding further with the trial.
21. With these directions, present revision petition stands disposed off.
22. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order.
CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 9 /923. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of all legal formalities.
Digitally signed SHIVALI by SHIVALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.11 Announced in open Court 16:53:58 +0530 Dated: 11.03.2025 Shivali Sharma Additional Sessions Judge-03(West) Tis Hazari Court/11.03.2025 CR No. 3062023 Satinder Yadav & Anr Vs State PS Paschim Vihar East Page No. 10 /9