Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kumar And Ors vs The State on 7 October, 2023
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS SHAIL JAIN
.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. (R).241/23
1. Sanjay Kumar
S/o S. Bangali Babu
2. Sh. Somnath Tiwari
S/o Sh. Ravi Shankar.
3. Sh. Bangali Babu
S/o Late Manohar Lal
4. Sh. Baijnath Tiwari
S/o Sh Ravi Shankar Tiwri
5. Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Bangali Babu
6. Sh. Satya Prakash
S/o Sh. Ravi Shankar.
7. Sh. Manoj
S/o Sh Ram Babu
8. Sh. Mukesh Chauhan Pahadi
S/o Sh. Sovar Singh Chauhan
9. Sh. Lalit Gupta
S/o Suh. Ramsawroop Gupta
10. Sh. Ankit Pandey
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Pandey
11. Kapil Gupta
S/o Sh. Lalit Gupta. ...Revisionists
Crl. (R) 241/23
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State & Ors. Page 1 of 6
:: 2 ::
VERSUS
The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. ..Respondent
Date of institution : 01/09/2023
Date of Arguments: 07/10/2023
Date of Judgment : 07/10/2023
JUDGMENT
1. The revisionists have filed present revision petition against impugned order dated 24.07.2023 passed by Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Ld. M.M (Mahila Court-01), East, KKD Courts, Delhi vide which, Ld. Trial Court ordered for framing of charges under Sections 323/452/427/506/509/34 IPC against accused persons/revisionists and discharged them for offence under Section 354B IPC.
2. Notice of revision petition was given to State as well as the complainant Ms. Himanshi Soni, but no reply has been filed either on behalf of State or complainant.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that complainant gave a complaint to SHO PS Shakar Pur stating therein that on 10.03.2018 at about 10.00 p.m., her husband Sh. Bharat Soni was coming on his motorcycle in Gali no.1, Ganesh Nagar II, Shakarpur, Delhi-92 and two boys Ankit Pandey and Neeraj Gola were standing on the way. Those boys threatened her husband by saying "Abki To Goli Se Bach Gaya, Abki Nahi Bachega". Her Crl. (R) 241/23 Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State & Ors. Page 2 of 6 :: 3 ::
husband dialled at no. 100 and narrated the entire incident to Police. In the meantime, Vinita Gola, Poonam Gola, Sanjay Gola, Neeraj Gola, Bharat Bhushan Gola, Bangali Babu (Rajesh Gola), also came, they started abusing and gave beatings to the husband of the complainant. After that, Somnath Tiwari, Satyaprakash Tiwari, Vednath Tiwari, Vijay Prakash Tiwari, Harishankar @ Muley, Manoj, Atul, Nishu, Harish Tailang, Ankit Pandey, Silky Arora, Mukesh Chauhan @ Pahadi, Kapil Gupta and Lalit Gupta came, armed with dandas and lathis, and started beating the complainant, her husband and her entire family.
Bharat Bhushan Gola, Hari Shakar and Somnath Tiwari surrounded her husband, made him lie on the ground and gave him beatings. These persons also attacked mother and mother-in- law of the complainant. These persons went to rooftop of the house of Bangali Babu (Rajesh Gola) and pelted bricks on the house of complainant. Thereafter, accused Bharat Bhushan, Somnath Tiwari, Manoj, Kapil Gupta, Mukesh Chauhan and Hari Shankar @ Muley barged into their house by breaking door with wooden sticks and tore clothes of the complainant and her sisters-in-law in order to outrage their modesty. They also vandalised household articles of the complainant. They also gave beatings to father of the complainant, who lives in street No.2 of the same locality and misbehaved with ladies of the house. All these persons were drunk at the time of committing aforesaid incident. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 109/2018 under Sections 427/506/509/354-B/323/452/34 IPC IPC was registered against the accused persons/revisionists herein.
Crl. (R) 241/23 Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State & Ors. Page 3 of 6 :: 4 ::
4. After hearing Ld. Counsel for accused persons and Ld. APP on application for seeking discharge of accused persons, vide impugned order dated 24.07.2023, Ld. Trial Court ordered for framing of charges under Sections 323/452/427/506/509/34 IPC against the accused persons/revisionists, however, they were discharged for offence under Section 354B IPC. Being aggrieved with order of framing of charges under Sections 323/452/427/506/509/34 IPC against the revisionists/accused persons, they have preferred the instant revision petition.
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists have submitted that the complainant, Archana and Rani in their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have not imputed allegations of eve-teasing and beating to any of the revisionists/accused persons and due to the same, they all should be discharged.
6. On the other hand, Ld Addl PP as well as complainant have submitted that allegations of house-tresspass, beating, threatening, vandalising household articles are there in the complaint made by the complainant to the Police. Complainant, present in the Court, submitted that allegations of her complaint are true and she stands by the same. It is stated that statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded only since there were allegations of assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe complainant and other women, hence it was not necessary for them to narrate the entire complaint in their statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that since allegations under section 354B IPC were not alleged by the complainant and other women in their statement under section Crl. (R) 241/23 Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State & Ors. Page 4 of 6 :: 5 ::
164 Cr.P.C., Ld. Trial Court had already discharged accused persons for offence under section 354B IPC. But, other allegations, as mentioned in the complaint, still stand and same are re-affirmed by the complainant, present in the court today and they require to be proved by prosecution. It is submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and revision petition deserves dismissal.
7. I have considered submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the complaint made to the SHO PS Shakar Pur, on the basis of which FIR No. 109/2018 was registered, there are specific allegations of extending threat, house tress pass, causing hurt, causing damage to the property and acts intending to insult the modesty of women against the accused persons. Since the complainant and other women did not support allegation of assault or using criminal force with intent to disrobe them in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., accused have been rightly discharged for offence under section 354-B IPC, however, other allegations made in the complaint still stand, as re-affirmed by the complainant, present in the court. Moreover, I am in agreement with submission of Ld. Addl PP that complainant and other women were not supposed to narrate the entire incident in their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as their statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. were specially recorded, because there were allegation of offence under section 354-B IPC.
9. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that no ground to discharge revisionists/accused persons for Crl. (R) 241/23 Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State & Ors. Page 5 of 6 :: 6 ::
offences under Sections 323/452/427/506/509/34 IPC is made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order is well reasoned and justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Revision petition is without any substance. Same is accordingly dismissed.
10. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed SHAIL by SHAIL JAIN Date: JAIN 2023.10.07 16:28:54 +0530 Announced in the open court (SHAIL JAIN) today on 07th October, 2023 Principal District & Sessions Judge East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Crl. (R) 241/23 Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State & Ors. Page 6 of 6