Delhi District Court
Pavan Sachdeva vs State on 6 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT JUDGE
(SOUTH DISTRICT) & ASJ/I/C (SOUTH & SOUTHEAST):
SAKET NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Petition No. 274/11
ID No.: 02406R0276872011
Pavan Sachdeva,
S/o Shri Madan Lal Sachdeva,
R/o 112Ekta Enclave,,
New Delhi - 110 087.
......Revisionist
Versus
State ......Respondent
Instituted on: 31.10.2011
Judgment reserved on: 06.03.2012
Judgment pronounced on: 06.03.2012.
J U D G M E N T
1. This criminal revision petition is directed against order dated 26.07.2011 passed by Sh. Rakesh Pandit, Ld. A.C.M.M. (South District) on the file of Criminal Case No. 182/2003 registered on 03.05.2003 on the basis of the charge sheet submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 675/1999, Police Stateion Vasant Kunj, u/s. 147/148/149/365/452/506/342/34 of the IPC, 1860. The petitioner had Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 1 of 8 been summoned as accused by the A.C.M.M., who took cognizance on the charge sheet vide order dated 03.05.2003. Vide the impugned order, the A.C.M.M. concluded that prima facie case for framing of charge u/s. 365/34 of the IPC, 1860 was made out against the petitioner. The correctness, propriety and legality of the said order, has been brought in question through the revision petition at hand.
2. The revision petition is resisted by the State through oral submissions mainly relying on Trial Court record.
3. I have heard Sh. Naresh Gupta, Advocate for appellant and Sh. R.S. Negi, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State. I have gone through the Trial Court record.
4. The FIR in question was registered under directions of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1082/98, which had been preferred by Jitender Pal Singh in December, 1998 alleging, inter alia, an incident stated to have occurred on 20.02.1998. In the writ petition, the petitioner herein was shown as respondent No. 4. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the writ petitioner Jitender Pal Singh (the complainant) claimed to be owner / landlord of agricultural land Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 2 of 8 located in Village Samalka, New Delhi. He referred to a lease agreement that had been entered upon between him on one hand and the petitioner herein on the other for purposes of setting up a hotel / motel, the land beneath being given on lease initially for a period of 30 years extendable by another 30 years in the discretion of the petitioner.
5. As per the writ petition, certain disputes had arisen between the parties on which account the complainant had preferred a Civil Suit bearing No. 319/1998, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner herein, particularly with regard to the possession of the property in question. It appears that the said civil suit came up for admission and hearing before Hon'ble High Court on 20.02.1998 when order for maintaining status quo came to be passed. The incident which is the subject matter of this criminal case is stated to have occurred in the afternoon of 20.02.1998, the very date on which the said adinterim order was granted by the Hon'ble High Court.
6. It was the case of the complainant in the writ petition that the petitioner accompanied by a number of accomplices had converged onto the property in question, in an unlawful assembly, so as to forcibly take over its possession. It was claimed that three employees Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 3 of 8 of the complainant including one Mr. Mohan Kumar (described as Gardner) had been living on the premises in question at his instance. It was alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner and his associates had kidnapped the said Mohan Kumar and his wife Smt. Meera, forcibly taking them away from the land in question in a vehicle to some other place which fact was even reported to police station Vasant Kunj, but with no case being registered thereupon.
7. During the investigation of the FIR, Mohan Kumar and Meera were examined by the Investigating Officer u/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. There statements, read conjointly, seem to indicate that the petitioner herein alongwith a few others had come to the farm house in two vehicles at about 1.30 P.M. on 20.02.1998 in order to take possession of the property and that he (the petitioner) had forcibly abducted Mohan Kumar and his wife Meera in a jeep and had taken them elsewhere to be let off around 7.00 P.M. at the farm house. It is this part of the evidence submitted with the charge sheet which has persuaded the A.C.M.M. to observe that there are specific allegations against the petitioner ('that he tried to kidnap'), meriting charge to be framed for offence u/s. 365/34 of the IPC, 1860.
Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 4 of 8
8. But then, the plea of the petitioner has been that under the lease agreement, the possession of the farm house in question had actually been handed over to him and the claim of the complainant that he (alongwith his said employees) had continued to be present on the premises in control of possession was false and contrary to the documentary proof.
9. It is the defence of the petitioner that in the wake of status quo order passed by Hon'ble High Court on 20.02.1998, an incident actually took place in the farm house on 20.02.1998 wherein he was insisting on one hand that he was in possession while the opposite side (the complainant) was claiming to the contrary. It is the submission of the petitioner that the said incident had taken an ugly turn which resulted in the local police intervening through SubInspector Dharam Dev, with reference to D.D. Nos. 16A and 17A that had been recorded on 20.02.1998 in police station Vasant Kunj.
10.The documents filed on record with the charge sheet seem prima facie to confirm the claim of the petitioner. The said documents further show that the intervention of SubInspector Dharam Dev of police station Vasant Kunj resulted in preventive action being taken in the Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 5 of 8 form of kalanadaras u/s. 107/151 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 being submitted before the Special Executive Magistrate (SouthWest), New Delhi with reference to D.D. No. 28A dated 20.02.1998. The copies of the two said kalandaras are part of the Trial Court record and show that one kalandara was directed against the petitioner and five others (described as "second party") while the other kalandara was directed against Jitender Pal Singh and Mohan Kumar (described as the "first party").
11.The two kalanadaras read together would indicate that SubInspector Dharam Dev had reached the farm house in question at about 2.30 P.M. when he found the first party and the second party quarreling with each other, out to cause breach of peace. The kalandaras would also show all members of both parties were arrested by SubInspector Dharam Dev and taken to the police station. The documents on record further show that both parties were produced before the Special Executive Magistrate on 21.02.1998. This would apparently mean that the petitioner herein, as indeed Mohan Kumar (one of the persons allegedly abducted),, had been arrested at 2.30 P.M. on 20.02.1998 and had remained in custody till produced before the Special Executive Magistrate on 21.02.1998.
Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 6 of 8
12.It is the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that he could not have abducted Mohan Kumar, nor Mohan Kumar could have been so abducted, at 1.30 P.M. so as to be confined till 7.00 P.M., if both were found present at and arrested by the police from, the farm house of the complainant at 2.30 P.M.
13.It is true that a Criminal Court while considering the question of charge is not called upon or expected to pass a detailed order mentioning the entire set of facts or discuss the entire evidence on the basis of the charge is found to be made out. But then, it is also well settled that the order directing the charge to be framed cannot be cryptic so as to not even deal with the contentions of the defence resisting the framing of charge. In order to show for the record that the contentions of the defence have been duly considered and taken into account, the order must not only spell out the contentions, but also deal with the same giving the reasons why they have not been accepted at that stage.
14.The order impugned before this Court is too cryptic to be accepted. Merely observing that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the statements of the witnesses cannot suffice. The above Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 7 of 8 contention of the petitioner has not even been considered leave alone discussed and rejected in the impugned order.
15.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order cannot be upheld. It is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the A.C.M.M. (South) for fresh consideration of the case on the question of charge.
16.The revision petition stands disposed off with these observations / directions.
17. The Trial Court record be returned with a copy of this judgment.
18. File of the Criminal Revision Petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on this 06th day of March, 2012 (R.K. GAUBA)
ASJ/I/C (South & South East)
Saket/New Delhi/06.03.2012
Crl.R. No. 274/11 Pavan Sachdeva Vs. State Page 8 of 8