Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Rakesh Chhabra vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 November, 2013

 IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG: ADDL. SESSIONS 
               JUDGE­03 (CENTRAL), DELHI

CR No. 87/13

     1. Rakesh Chhabra
        S/o Late Sh. Harbans Lal
        R/o 53, Avtar Enclave, 
        Pachim Vihar, Delhi.

2.      Manjeet Singh
        W/o Lae Sh. Trilok Singh
        R/o B­63, Motia Khan,
        Double Storied Quarters,
        Paharganj, Delhi­110055.
                                                       ... Revisionists

        Versus

        The State of NCT of Delhi
        Through the SHO 
        PS Karol Bagh, Delhi.

                                                       ... Respondent 


Date of institution:         25.10.2013
Date of arguments:           06.11.2913
Date of judgment  :          06.11.2913

ORDER

1. The revisionary jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by the revisionist assailing the order dated CR No. 87/13 Page No. 1 Rakesh Chhabra & another Vs. State 27.7.2013 and 01.08.2013 passed by Ld. Magistrate in FIR No.118/01 PS Karol Bagh whereby he was charged of the offence under Section 3 & 4 of ITP Act. He has assailed the said order stating that the above said impugned order is fallacious, illegal, unlawful, erroneous and not tenable in law and also suffer from non­application of mind. Trial court ought to have appreciate that the alleged decoy customer was beat constable of the area and he is the person who had used to verify and sign the register regularly in the hotel. The arguments of the prosecution that these issues can be decided during the trial is fallacious proposition as it was always open to the police to investigate these aspects like the dates when HC Virender signed the register. The trial court ought to have noticed the contradictions contained in the FIR and other statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC. He submits that the order of framing of charge against the revisionists under Section 3/4 of ITP Act be recalled and set aside.

2. Upon filing of the revision petition, trial court record was summoned and notice was given to the respondent. As per the trial court record, on 13.4.2001 at about 7:30p.m. SI Santosh was on patrolling duty alongwith SI Rajender Singh, HC Virender, HC Ram Mehar and when they reached at Channa Market, Police Booth No. 9, he received a secret CR No. 87/13 Page No. 2 Rakesh Chhabra & another Vs. State information regarding the business of prostitution carrying on at hotel Parth International at 8A/48 WEA Karol Bagh. The said business was carried by the owner of the hotel Rakesh Chabbra and Manager Manjeet Singh in the said hotel. Komal, Sonia, Tina were present there for prostitution purposes. If the raid was conducted, they can be apprehended. Raiding party was formed. Lady staff from PS was called. Raid was conducted. Before conducting the raid HC Virender and SI Rajender Singh were sent as decoy customers. Three girls namely Komal, Sonia and Tina were apprehended as well as the hotel Manager. The owner/revisionist was arrested. Trial court vide order dated 27.7.2013 ordered to frame the charge under Section 3 & 4 of ITP Act against accused Rakesh Chabbra and Manjeet Singh. Formal charge was framed against the revisionists on 01.8.2013. Accused Komal, Samantha Johns and Triza John pleaded guilty when they were charged and convicted under Section 8 of ITP Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­ each.

3. Against the impugned order of framing of the charge, revisionists have filed the revision petition assailing the said order stating that the order is not proper, legal and correct. The only arguments of the revisionists' is HC Virender was the beat constable and everybody knew him and the whole CR No. 87/13 Page No. 3 Rakesh Chhabra & another Vs. State story of the prosecution as he was sent as decoy customer is nothing but a concocted story. Trial court had made observation that this fact can be taken on later stage is a wrong observation because it is admitted fact that the HC Virender was sent as decoy customer as well as he used to sign the register when checked in the hotel.

4. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the revisionist has no merits because the Head Constable Virender was the beat constable and only for that reason Manager Manjeet Singh would have agreed to procure the girls. No stranger can be allowed to entertain in the hotel for this purpose without any introduction because the nature of the business demands.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any impropriety, incorrectness and illegality in the order passed by the Ld. MM, therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent to the ld. Trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.

Announced in open court On 6th of November, 2013.

(ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge­03 (Central), Delhi CR No. 87/13 Page No. 4 Rakesh Chhabra & another Vs. State 06.11.2013 Present : Appellant in person.

Sh.V.K.Negi, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

Vide separate judgment dictated and announced, the revision petition is dismissed. TCR alongwith a copy of this order is sent to the ld. Trial court. Revision file is consigned to record room.

(Atul Kumar Garg) ASJ­03 (Central)/06.11.2013 CR No. 87/13 Page No. 5 Rakesh Chhabra & another Vs. State