Delhi District Court
Sanjay Verma vs The State on 11 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 70 of 2018
CNR NO. DLSE01-000565-2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sanjay Verma,
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal,
R/o A-189, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi
2. Shyam Lal,
S/o Sh Ram Saran,
R/o A-187, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi
.......Revisionists
Versus
The State
........Respondent
Instituted on : 09.01.2018
Reserved on : 09.06.2022
Pronounced on : 11.07.2022
Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 1 of 9
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11
15:27:56 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant petition, revisionists take exception to the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-08, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby charge for offences u/s 420/406/506/509/34 IPC against revisionist no.1 Sanjay Verma and charge for offences u/s 506/509/34 IPC against revisionist no.2 Shyam Lal were framed, in case bearing Cr Case No. 87007/2016, FIR No. 401/2011, Police Station Jamia Nagar titled as 'State Vs Sanjay Verma & Ors'.
2. Record reveals that a complaint u/s 200 CrPC came to be filed by complainant alongwith an application u/s 156(3) CrPC before Ld Magistrate with the allegations that she is owner of property No. G-89, 13A Road, Khasra No.442, Kalindi Kunj, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi measuring 250 Sq Yards as the same was purchased by her from accused Sanjay Verma and his father Shyam Lal Verma (revisionists herein) and from one P. C. Bidhuri for an agreed amount of Rs.26,15,500/- in September 2000. It was further alleged that complainant had given two installments of Rs.10 lacs on 06.10.2000 and 27.12.2000 and possession of property was handed over to her.
2A. It was further alleged that on 31.03.2011, complainant came to know through an anonymous call that accused persons are carrying out some illegal construction activity on her aforesaid property. As per complainant, accused persons abused her as well as extended threats to her. Complainant further alleged that accused persons trespassed into her property and had hatched conspiracy to cheat her.
Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 2 of 9
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11
15:28:09 +0530
3. Record further transpires that Ld Magistrate vide order dated 01.08.2011 passed directions for registration of FIR while allowing the application u/s 156(3) CrPC filed by complainant. After investigation, chargesheet was filed by Investigating Agency against revisionist no.1 Sanjay Verma and against certain other accused persons including revisionist no.2 Shyam Lal Verma were kept in column no.12. Record transpires that after filing of chargesheet, cognizance for offences u/s 420/452/506/406/34 IPC was taken by Ld Magistrate against the revisionist no.1/accused and thereafter, he was summoned. Record further transpires that revisionist no.2 alongwith other accused persons were also summoned by Ld Magistrate vide order dated 11.01.2016 and thereafter, matter was fixed for arguments on charge.
4. Ld. Magistrate vide impugned order found sufficient material to frame charge against revisionist no.1 Sanjay Sharma for offences u/s 420/406/506/509/34 IPC. Charges under section 506/509/34 IPC was also directed to be framed against revisionist no.2 Shyam Lal and other accused.
5. The revisionists are aggrieved with the impugned order and have assailed the same on various grounds which can be summarized as under:-
(i) That Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and same is liable to be set-aside;
(ii) That the impugned order is against the settled principles of law, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice to the revisionists;
(iii) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged incident Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 3 of 9 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:28:30 +0530 took place in the year 2000 and as such it cannot take cognizance after expiry of limitation period in terms of section 468 & 469 CrPC;
(iv) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist no.1 neither received any amount from the complainant nor he has issued any receipt to her;
(v) That Ld Trial Court erred in framing of charge against the revisionists as the contents of chargesheet do not disclose necessary ingredients;
(vi) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate that prosecution failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the revisionists and merely suspicion is not enough to put them on trial;
(vii) That Ld Trial Court passed the impugned order in haste without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as material available on record;
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionists had argued on the line of grounds as taken in the instant revision. It was vehemently argued that revisionists herein have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the instant FIR. It was further vehemently argued that Ld. Magistrate committed grave error in passing the impugned order as the same was passed in haste ignoring the factual matrix and materials available on record. It was argued that during investigation, no evidence was found against the revisionists and for said reason, Investigating Agency kept them in column no.12 being suspects. It was argued that impugned order is completely silent as to on what basis, Ld. Magistrate concluded that there is prima facie sufficient material to frame charge against the revisionists. It was argued that basic ingredients of offences as alleged / charged against the revisionists are totally missing in the instant case. On the strength of these arguments, revisionists seek setting aside of Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 4 of 9 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:28:39 +0530 the impugned order.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 had argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the same was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was vehemently argued that accused persons cheated the complainant of her hard earned money and also extended threats to her live as well as of lives of her sons. It was submitted that the present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
8. I heard rival contentions and perused the record.
9. The Trial court vide impugned order had framed charges under section 420/406/506/509/34 IPC qua revisionist Sanjay Verma and charges under section 506/509/34 IPC qua revisionist Shyam Lal. As to the charge under section 506 IPC, the Ld Trial Court relied upon the version of complainant wherein she alleged that she was threatened by the revisionists. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that complainant got alarmed in any manner with the threats allegedly given by revisionists. Therefore, no offence under section 506 IPC is made out in the present case. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Amitabh Adhar & Anr Vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2000 CRI. L.J.4772, wherein it was observed as under:-
"...............the averments made in the FIR and in the case diary statement of the complainant against the petitioner also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under section 506/509 IPC. The threats alleged to have been given to the complainant Ms Bharti by the petitioners do not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation in as much as the complainant has nowhere Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 5 of 9 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:28:47 +0530 stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere threats is no offence................"
10. Further, in judgment titled Surinder Suri Vs State of Haryana, 1996(2) RCR, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed:
"......... the gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening. A threat, in order to be indictable must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As for instance, mere vague allegations by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation........"
11. Similar are the observations of Hon'ble Madras High Court in "Noble Mohan Dass Vs. State Madras High Court 1988".
12. So far as charge under section 509 IPC is concerned, it is evident from record that complainant made only vague and general allegations that the revisionists abused her in filthy language without specifying the exact word / abuses allegedly hurled upon her by the revisionists. Therefore, in my considered view, the allegations being general and omnibus, do not give rise to any grave suspicion against any of the said revisionists for offence under section 509 IPC.
13. Though it can be argued that on the basis of statement of complainant, a suspicion arises against the revisionists for offences u/s 506/509 IPC, however it is a settled law that mere suspicion shall not suffice for framing charge against any accused and the test is that of 'grave Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 6 of 9 ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:28:55 +0530 suspicion'. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors. , AIR 1979 SC 366, wherein it was held that the Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. It has been further held that where the materials placed before the Court disclosed a 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. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion, but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. It is a settled law that the presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. Relevant portion of the afore-mentioned judgment is reproduced hereinunder:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(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 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 Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 7 of 9 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:29:02 +0530 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."
14. If the present case is tested upon the touchstone of settled principles of law, I am of the considered view that no grave suspicion arises against revisionists Sanjay Verma and Shyam Lal so as to charge them for offence under section 506/509/34 IPC. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent whereby charges were framed against revisionists for said offences is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, revisionists Shyam Lal Verma stands discharged in the instant case and revisionist Sanjay Verma stands discharged for offences under section 506/509/34 IPC in the instant case.
15. However, as far as charge for offence u/s 420/34 IPC and in alternate u/s 406/34 IPC is concerned, in my considered view, on the basis of statement of complainant as well as expert report which fixes the authorship on the receipt dated 27.12.2020 (as a witness) with revisionist/accused Sanjay Verma and in view of the police report (filed after conclusion of investigation) wherein it is revealed that the property in question did not belong to Prem Chand Bidhuri, a grave suspicion arises against the revisionist Sanjay Verma and therefore, the view taken by Ld Trial Court on this count cannot be faulted with. In my view, the grounds taken by the revisionist Sanjay Verma assailing the charges under section 420/406/34 IPC call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 8 of 9 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:29:13 +0530 before the actual trial begins.
16. With these observations, present petition stands partly allowed. Both the revisionist stand discharged in this case for offences under section 506/509/34 IPC. However, there is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order so far as charges under section 420/34 IPC and in alternate under section 406/34 IPC were framed against revisionist no.1 Sanjay Verma.
17. The present revision petition stands disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.
18. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial court along with copy of this judgment.
19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed by compliance. ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.07.11 15:29:21 +0530 Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL) Court on 11th July, 2022 Additional Sessions Judge-05, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl Rev No. 70 of 2018 Sanjay Verma & Anr vs. The State Page No. 9 of 9