Delhi District Court
Swami Sadachari Om Ji vs State Of Delhi Govt on 23 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03
(PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision no.63/15
UID No.02406R0357442015
Swami Sadachari Om Ji
r/o 29, New Khanna Market
Lodhi Colony
New Delhi110003 ..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. State of Delhi Govt.
2. Pramod Jha
29, New Khanna Market,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi
3. Raj Kumar Jha
s/o Late Naresh Jha
V.P.O & PSNehra
TehsilSakari, District Darbhanga
Bihar.
......... Respondents
Date of filing of revision : 03.11.2015
Date of allocation : 04.11.2015
Arguments concluded on : 23.02.2016
Date of order : 23.02.2016
CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 1/8
Criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC r.w 401
Cr.PC against framing the Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC against
the accused persons in case titled as 'State Vs. Pramod Jha
& Anr', FIR no.71/2009 u/s 323, 341, 34 IPC
PS Lodhi Colony.
ORDER
1. Vide this order revisionist has challenged impugned order dated 29.11.2014 vide which Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against respondentsaccused Pramod Kumar Jha and Raj Kumar Jha for offences u/s 323 & 341 r.w 34 IPC in case titled as "State Vs. Pramod Kumar Jha, FIR no.71/09, PSLodhi Colony (Crime Branch). The revision is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.
2. The case of the revisionistcomplainant is that respondents no.2 and 3 and some police officials of PS Lodhi Colony murderously assaulted and robbed him on 22.11.2008 at about 8.30 PM. The complaint to this effect was lodged by the complainant vide DD no.19 A dated 22.11.2008. Later at the request of the revisionist complainant, a medical board was constituted and he was again medically examined from 01.12.2008 to 05.12.2008. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint case u/s 200 Cr.PC r.w. section 151 Cr.PC. It CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 2/8 was only on direction of the Court that FIR no.71/09 was registered at PSLodhi Colony. The first chargesheet was filed against respondents no.2 and 3 on 30.09.2009. It is alleged by revisionistcomplainant that his statement was not recorded by the IO. Upon the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the investigation was transferred to Crime Branch. The Crime Branch also filed second chargesheet without examining the complainant. The grievance of the revisionistcomplainant is that Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC for the offences u/sections 323, 341, 34 IPC has been erroneously framed whereas charge for the offences u/sections 307, 457,506, 323, 120B IPC should have been framed against the accused persons and certain police officials. It is also submitted that the complainant had also filed protest petition u/s 173 (8) Cr.PC for further investigation of the case by CBI dated 04.12.2010 is still pending and ,therefore, notice could not have been framed. The revisionist has assailed the investigation conducted by Crime Branch. It is further stated that revisionistcomplainant had sustained grievous injuries all over his body and, therefore, Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC could not have been framed. It has also been pointed out that the Court of Ld. ACMM CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 3/8 had already taken cognizance for the offence u/s 307 IPC etc and had committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
3. In the application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition, the revisionist has claimed that he came to know about the impugned order only on 03.11.2015 and, therefore, he could not file the revision petition in time.
4. Respondent no.1 (State) and respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay and the revision petition.
5. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as respondent no.2. Despite waiting and despite opportunity, the revisionistcomplainant did not appear to address arguments. I shall, therefore, dispose of the present revision petition on the basis of record including trial court record. I have perused the record carefully.
6. The impugned order is dated 29.11.2014. The present revision petition has been filed only on 04.11.2015. In the application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition, the revisionist has simply claimed that he was not aware about the impugned order and that he came to know about it only on 03.11.2015. He submits that on coming to know of the CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 4/8 order, he filed the revision petition on the same day i.e. 03.11.2015.
7. Perusal of trial court record shows that after framing of charge vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2014, the case was listed for P.E on 28.01.2015. Summons were sent to the revisionistcomplainant for 12.03.2015 for appearance as PW. Fresh summons were sent to the complainant for 26.03.2015 on which date an exemption application was moved on his behalf by his counsel. It shows that as on 26.03.2015, the complainant was very well aware that the case FIR no.71/09, PSSaket was listed for prosecution evidence and that charge has already been framed in the matter. The record also makes it clear that the revisionist complainant had legal assistance available to him at that time. Case was again listed for 21.4.2015 for PE on which date revisionistcomplainant sought adjournment and also pointed out to Ld. Trial Court that his application dated 04.04.2015 u/s 408 Cr.PC for transferring the matter was pending before the Court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South East District. The submissions of revisionistcomplainant regarding non recording of his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC by the IO, complicity of accused and certain police personnels, CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 5/8 invoking section 307, 396, 397, 376 IPC against accused persons and coaccused Parmod Kumar Jha having been declared a proclaimed offender by some Court at TisHazari were also recorded by Ld. Trial Court. It only goes on to show that it is not a case where revisionistcomplainant was completely oblivious of proceedings being conducted in the matter but it was a case being constantly pursued by him. It falsifies the averments of the revisionistcomplainant in his application for condonation of delay that he came to know of the framing of Notice vide the impugned order in the present case only on 03.11.2015.
8. So far as his contention regarding framing of charge for offences u/sections 307, 397,457,506, 323, 120B IPC is concerned, it is noted that notice u/s 251 Cr.PC has been framed by ld trial court on the basis of material on record. The opinion of medical board dated 01.05.2009 is on record. It mentions that that injuries present over body of person (revisionistcomplainant herein) re examined on 01.12.2008 by medical board from 1 to 10 are simple injuries.
9. Ld. Addl. PP has rightly pointed out that if at the time of recording of PE, some new fact emerges, Charge can be altered u/s 216 Cr.PC. Similarly, u/s 319 Cr.PC, the CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 6/8 Trial Court is empowered to proceed against such person not being the accused if it appears from the evidence that he has committed any offence.
10. The revisionist has claimed that his protest petition for further investigation of the matter by CBI is still pending. However, it is his own case in the revision petition that he had moved an application for transfer of investigation to CBI before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and after consideration of this prayer, it was directed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the investigation be transferred to Crime Branch. Therefore, now revisionistcomplainant cannot challenge the proceedings conducted by Ld. Trial Court on the ground that his application/protest petition for further investigation by CBI is pending.
11. The revisionist has stated in the revision petition that ACP of Crime Branch himself had approached the Court of Ld. ACMM for committal of the case to the Sessions Court. The complainant has, however, withheld that Ld. Sessions Court had remanded the case back to the Court of CMM, South, Saket vide a detailed order dated 04.06.2013. The order of Ld. ASJ02 (South), Saket dated 04.06.2013 is on the trial court record.
CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 7/8
12. In view of the above discussion not only is there no manifest illegality or infirmity in the impugned order but the present revision petition is also time barred. The present revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
13. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 rd DAY OF FEBURARY, 2016.
(Vrinda Kumari)
ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)
(CBI3), South, Saket Court
New Delhi
CR No.63/15 23.02.2016 Page no. 8/8