Delhi District Court
Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State on 30 July, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No. 37/14
ID No.02406R0243932014
Smt. Daljeet Kaur
W/o Late Shri Sukhdev Singh
R/o 33, Jangpura Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi110014. ......Revisionist.
Through: Shri Multan Singh, Advocate.
versus
1. State
Through: Shri M. Zafar Khan, Additional
Public Prosecutor
2. Dalip Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Singh
R/o 33, Jangpura Road,
Bhogal, New Delhi110014.
3. Devender Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Singh
R/o H No. WZ568 (New No. WZ154 E)
2nd floor, Gali No. 5, Virender Nagar,
New Delhi - 110058.
4. Man Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Singh
CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 1 of 8
2
R/o 33, Jangpura Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi110014.
5. Hari Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Singh
6. Kirpal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Singh
Both 5 & 6 R/o 33, Jangpura Road,
Bhogal, New Delhi 110014.
7. Kuldeep Singh
S/o Man Singh
R/o 33, Jangpura Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi110014.
8. G. D. Joshi
S/o Late Sh. K. D. Joshi,
R/o 135, Village Kilokari,
New Delhi 110014. . . . . . Respondents.
Through: Shri A. K. Mishra, Advocate.
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 24.09.2014
Date when arguments were heard : 09.07.2015
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2015
JUDGMENT :
The present Criminal Revision filed by revisionist under section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") seeks CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 2 of 8 3 to challenge the legality, validity, correctness and propriety of order dated 23.03.2010 passed by Sh. Naveen Arora, the then learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short 'ACMM'), South East, New Delhi, in case FIR No.224/98, P.S. Sriniwas Puri, New Delhi, titled as 'State Vs Dalip Singh and Others'.
2. Revisionist made complaint dated 24.09.1995 against respondents number 2 to 8 for trespassing in his premises and also for stealing articles lying there in. He sent his complaint through telegram to the Chief Justice of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and forwarded his complaint to the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) and Police Head Quarters. Vide order dated 05.03.1998, Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi was pleased to direct for registration of FIR on the complaint of complainant and investigation of the matter.
3. Pursuant to directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, FIR bearing number 224/98, u/s 147/148/448/380/34 of The Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') was registered. Matter was investigated as per law. Respondents number 2 to 8 were found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, they were chargesheeted to face trial.
4. After hearing submissions of both the parties, learned ACMM was pleased to discharge all the respondents in the case vide his order CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 3 of 8 4 dated 23.03.2010.
5. Revisionist feeling aggrieved, by the impugned order dated 23.03.2010, has preferred the present revision petition.
6. On notice, respondents no.1 to 7 appeared to contest the petition. No formal reply has been filed on behalf of respondents. Respondent no.8 G. D. Joshi could not be served at his given address. Therefore, on the request of counsel for revisionist, respondent no.8 was directed to be deleted from the list of respondents.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by Shri Multan Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri M. Zafar Khan learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Shri A. K. Mishra learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 7.
8. It was submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that the learned ACMM passed the impugned order not after going through the charge sheet but the documents related to civil and criminal cases between the parties which is against the settled law. He further submitted that at the time of arguments on charge, the documents of the accused cannot be considered. He prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by learned ACMM.
9. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondents that there is no illegality in the order passed by learned ACMM and the CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 4 of 8 5 Trial Court has passed the order after giving full consideration and the documents placed on record by both the parties. He prayed to dismiss the revision filed by the revisionist.
10. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the material on record.
11. Trial Court record shows that the Investigating Officer on conclusion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent no.2 to 8 for offence punishable under Section 147/148/448/380/34 IPC. Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C deals with the Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates. The provisions contained in Section 239 and section 240 Cr.P.C. are relevant for deciding the matter in issue in this case. They are reproduced here under for ready reference: "239. When accused shall be discharged - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
240. Framing of charge - (1) If, upon such CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 5 of 8 6 consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried".
12. A bare look at the aforesaid provisions of law shows that at the time of consideration on the point of charge, the Magistrate is required to look into the police report and the documents send alongwith it. No other documents are to be considered at this stage. Accused is given opportunity of being heard at the point of charge. The documents submitted by accused if any, is not to be considered at this stage.
13. It was held in Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Delhi, 2010 (I) C. C. Cases (HC) 337 that the Court is not required to see the probative value of different material, which had been filed alongwith the charge sheet at the time of framing of charge. Court at the time of framing of charge is not expected to do meticulous dissection or evaluation of evidence produced by prosecution.
CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 6 of 8 7
14. In State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, JT 2004 (10), SC 303, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, roving and fishing enquiry is impermissible. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and the documents submitted there with and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge, hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.
15. In the case in hand, the learned ACMM has passed the order on discharge running into 35 pages. A bare look at the impugned order shows that all the litigations pending between the parties including Civil and Criminal at different Forums have been taken into consideration. The pleadings between the parties filed before the Civil Court and also the other Forums have been given consideration although the same were not the part of police report forwarded by the Investigating Officer u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
16. A Court of Session u/s 397 Cr.P.C. may call for and examine the record of proceedings before any inferior Court situate within his local CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 7 of 8 8 jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court and may exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 of Cr.P.C.
17. In the present case, while passing the impugned order the learned ACMM has acted in violation of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) and has discharged the respondents no.2 to 7 after taking into account the extraneous material and ignoring the material submitted by the Investigating Officer, in contravention of provisions of Section 240 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order palpably suffers from illegality, therefore, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for passing fresh order in accordance with law.
18. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 04.08.2015 at 2:00 PM.
18. A true copy of judgment alongwith TCR be sent back to court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 30th July, 2015 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 37/2014 Smt. Daljeet Kaur vs State & Ors. Page 8 of 8