Delhi District Court
Reema Sharma vs State on 6 March, 2014
Cri. Rev. no.41/14
Reema Sharma Vs State
06.03.2014
Pre: None.
Vide separate detailed order placed along side in the file, in
the pursuits of objects of justice, impugned order dated 17.08.2013 qua
for the offence u/s 325 IPC is set aside. Accordingly, revision petition
stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial court
on 22.03.2014. Ld. Trial court is directed to proceed with the case in
accordance with law. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy
of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PALTIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -03, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 41/14
IN THE MATTER OF :
Reema Sharma
W/o Sh. Jayant Sharma,
R/o - 682, Block - 5, BKS Marg,
New Delhi
..............Revisionist
Versus
State
Smt. Babita Mahali,
D/o Sh. Arun Mahali,
R/o No. 1 Kohara, Bagariguri,
Village - Kajiranga
PO- K.N.Park
PS - Bokakhat
District : - Gola Ghatt
Pin No. 785609
Assam
................Respondent
06.03.2014
ORDER:
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2013 passed by ld. MM (hereafter referred as impugned order) whereby ld. Trial Court ordered to frame charge against the revisionist for the offence u/s 325 IPC and 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and declined the request of compounding of offence under Section 325 IPC.
2. Briefly the factual matrix of the case is that on a complaint made by Ms. Babita, aged about 12 years, an FIR 22/11 at PS Mandir Marg was registered against the revisionist alleging that the respondent no.2 was 2 employed by the revisionist. During the employment respondent no.2 was assaulted by the revisionist on various occasions. On the registration of FIR the age of the victim was assessed between 12 -13 years and after investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 325 IPC and under Section 23 and 26 Juvenile Justice Act. However, before passing the impugned order dated 17.08.2013, the respondent no.2 accompanied with her mother appeared before the court on 06.02.2013 and sought permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. Accordingly, joint statement of respondent no.2 and her mother was recorded on 06.02.2013, wherein they stated that they have amicably settled the matter with the revisionist and they have received Rs.40,000/- in cash from the revisionist as compensation.
3. Ld. Trial Court after going through the case file and material available on record passed the impugned order 17.08.2013 on finding sufficient material on record to frame a charge against accused/ revisionist for the offence u/s 325 IPC and Section 23 of J.J.Act. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.08.2013, ld. Counsel filed the present revision petition.
4. Arguments were heard. During course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that matter was already compromised between the parties vide joint statement dated 06.02.2013 recorded before the court of the then Ld. MM, Ms. Vijeta Singh. Ld. Counsel for the 3 revisionist also argued and submitted that in spite of recording of statement, the matter was not allowed to be compromised by the court concerned. He again submitted that in spite the compromise, the court ordered for framing of charge and the same was framed against the revisionist for the offences under Section 325 IPC and Section 23 JJ Act. Ld counsel for the revisionist again submitted that Section 325 IPC is compoundable. On the strength of the above arguments, ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
5. Contrary to it, Ld. APP for the state submitted that Section 23 of the JJ Act against which the charge has been framed against the accused is not compoundable. He further submitted that Section 325 IPC is compoundable, but with the permission of the court since the charge has been framed, therefore, no permission was given to the parties for compromise. On these grounds he submitted that revision petition be dismissed.
6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. Counsel for the revisionist and ld. APP as well. It is a well settled principle of law that determination of fact is an exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court and this court has limited jurisdiction to enter into this area of discretion exercised by the ld. trial court. This court is conscious of the fact that to arrive at a prima facie view for framing of charge is the sole discretion of 4 the Court of ld. MM. In the case in hand, the charge framed for the offence u/s 23 J.J. Act is not compoundable and the compromise statement was recorded on 06.02.2013 only for the offence u/s 325 IPC, before framing of charge. Since, it is on record that statement of respondent no.2 and her mother was recorded on 06.02.2013 by the ld. MM for amicable settlement in respect of offence u/s 325 IPC and to this effect they also received Rs.40,000/- . Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances the framing of charge for the offence u/s 325 IPC by ld. Trial court impacts the principle of fairness and legitimate expectations of the revisionist. In the pursuits of objects of justice, impugned order dated 17.08.2013 qua for the offence u/s 325 IPC is set aside. Accordingly, revision petition stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial court on 22.03.2014. Ld. Trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 06.03.2014.
(RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE PALTIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI 5