Delhi District Court
Smt. Parwati @ Munni vs State on 5 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 55874
IN THE MATTER OF :
1 Smt. Parwati @ Munni
W/o Sh. Sukhdev
2 Smt. Kavita
W/o Sh. Naresh
Both R/o H.NO. A4/273,
Nand Nagari, Delhi
............PETITIONERS
versus
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
........RESPONDENT
DATE OF FILING : 17.02.2016
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 05.12.2016
DATE OF ORDER : 05.12.2016
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 55849/16
IN THE MATTER OF :
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 1/11
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
............PETITIONER
versus
1 Mukesh kumar
S/o Sh. Sukhdev.
2 Smt. Parwati @ Munni
W/o Sh. Sukhdev.
3 Naresh
S/o Sh. Sukhdev.
4 Ms. Kavita
W/o Naresh
5 Ms. Rekha
W/o Pawan Kumar
........RESPONDENTS
DATE OF FILING : 17.02.2016
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 05.12.2016
DATE OF ORDER : 05.12.2016
ORDER
1 Vide this common order, I shall dispose two revision petitions filed by petitioners Smt. Parwati @ CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 2/11 Munni and Kavita (CR No. 55874/16) (both accused persons before ld. Trial court) and the State (Cr. No. 55849/16) all challenging the impugned Order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Ld. MM thereby ordering for framing of charge u/s 323/34 IPC against the petitioners namely Smt. Parwati @ Munni and Kavita and discharging all the accused persons (all respondents herein in Cr. No. 55849/16) u/s 498A/406/506 IPC. The petitioners Smt. Parwati @ Munni and Kavita have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and discharging them for the offences u/s 323/34 IPC. While on the other hand, in petition no. 55849/16, State has challenged the impugned order for discharging all the accused persons u/s 498A/406/506 IPC and has prayed for framing of charges/additional charges against all the accused persons.
2 The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions are that FIR No. 356/13 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC P.S Khayala was registered against the accused persons on the complaint of complainant Ms. Janak Dulari. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s 498A/406/506/34 IPC was filed by IO against five accused persons (all respondents herein in CR. No. 55849/16). Vide impugned order dt. 19.01.2016, the ld. Trial court ordered CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 3/11 for framing of charge u/s 323/34 IPC against accused persons namely Pawati @ Munni and Kavita (petitioners in Cr.No. 55874/16) and discharged all the accused persons u/s 498A/406/506 IPC.
3 Notice of petitions were served on the respondents in both the matters.
4 By way of petition no. 55874/16, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners/accused persons that the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside as the said order is bad in law and not sustainable. Further that the trial court has not considered the material facts involved in the case. Further that the ld. Trial court has overlooked the provisions of Sec. 155 clause 2 Cr.P.C wherein no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such cases or commit the case for trial, as such the IO of the case has no power to investigate the case without the permission of the court and cannot file the charge-sheet before the court u/s 323/34 IPC. Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that the IO has not filed the charge-sheet within limitation and u/s 468 Cr.P.C. Alongwith certain other contention, it is submitted CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 4/11 that the impugned order be setaside and petitioners be discharged.
5 So far as petition no. 55849/16 is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the State/petitioner that the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside/modified as the said order is bad in law and not sustainable. Further that the trial court has not considered the material facts involved in the case. Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that a prima-facie case for offence u/s 498A/406/506/394/34 IPC is also made out against the accused persons. Alongwith certain other contentions, it is submitted that the impugned order be setaside/modified to the extent that a prima-facie charge for the offences u/s 498A/406/506/394/34 IPC is to be framed against all the accused persons.
6 I have heard ld. counsel for parties and carefully perused the record including the trial court record in the light of submissions made before me.
7 Before proceedings further, it will not be out of place to have a reference to the guidelines given by the superior courts for the purpose of consideration at the CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 5/11 stage of framing of charges. In this regard, the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Sushil Ansal Vs. State cited as 2002 CRI L.J 1369 (DHC) are reproduced as follows :
"The principles that emerge governing orders under Ss. 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C are that only those cases where a judge is almost certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in a conviction, and is of the view that the time of the Court need not be wasted by holding a trial, an order of discharge may be passed under S. 227 of the Code. However, in case there is a strong suspicion, founded upon some material available on record, which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the commission of the offence by an accused, the framing of the charge would be warranted . No detailed or elaborate enquiry is required to be undertaken at this stage by delving deep into various aspects of the matter to find out as to whether an accused can be held guilty or not. Probable defence of an accused is not to be looked into nor the probative value of the material on record has to be examined . In nut shell an order of discharge under S.227 of the Code would be warranted only in those cases where the Court is satisfied that there are no chances of conviction of an accused and the trial would be an exercise in futility."
CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 6/11
Furthermore, the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case titled as Union of India Vs. Praffula Kumar, 1979, CRI L.J 154 (SC) in this regard is reproduced as below :
"The judge while considering the questions of framing the charge u/s 227 of the Code has the undoubted power of 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. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been property explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial."
8 Perusal of record reveals that the ld. Trial court has discharged all the accused persons u/s 498A/406 IPC by observing that there is neither any single allegation of any sort of dowry demand nor any single word has been uttered qua the entrustment of any of the articles to the accused persons. Further, while discharging the accused persons u/s 506 IPC, it is observed by ld. trial court that the complainant has not alleged any single word qua any threat extended by the accused persons at any point of time. The Ld. Trial court also discharged the accused persons u/s 394 IPC with observations that the CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 7/11 complainant has not specified the role of any of the accused persons. It is further observed that throughout the complaint, the complainant has herself not uttered even a single word that accused persons even made any effort to snatch away any of her articles.
The ld. Trial court ordered for framing of charge against the accused persons namely Parwati @ Munni Devi and Kavita with observations that the complainant has categorically alleged that on 05.06.2013, she was beaten by her mother-in-law Munni Devi and sister-in-law Kavita and also produced medical documents in that regard.
9 If the material available on record, particularly the material collected by the IO during investigation is analyzed in light of provisions of Indian Panel Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the different judgments passed by the superior courts in forms of guidelines for the stage of framing of charge, I reach at a conclusion that the observations given by the ld. trial court are correct and it has rightly observed about existence of a prima-facie case u/s 323/34 IPC against accused Parwati @ Munni Devi and Kavita and has rightly discharged all the accused persons u/s 498A/406/506/394/34 IPC. The CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 8/11 impugned order reflects a judicious application of mind by the ld. Trial court at the time of passing of impugned order whereby not only charges have been framed for certain offences against the accused persons, they have been discharged also for some other offences.
10 One of the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners in CR. No55874/16 is regarding applicability of section 155 (2) Cr.P.C and section 468 Cr.P.C. These objections are not found to be of much force as the FIR in this case was registered u/s 498A/406/34 IPC which are cognizable offences. The charge-sheet was also filed under cognizable sections i.e 498A/406/506/34 IPC. Not only this, the cognizance was also taken by the ld. Trial court on 02.07.2015 u/s 498A/406/506/34 IPC and it was within limitation on that day. Simply because the accused persons/petitioners have been found liable for facing trial under a minor offence (323/34 IPC) at the time of consideration on charge, it cannot be said that the proceedings are vitiated by virtue of section 155 & 468 Cr.P.C.
11 A careful perusal of the record in general and the impugned Order in particular, it reveals that the CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 9/11 petitioners have not been able to show any reasonable ground for interfering with the impugned Order. Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned Order dated 19.01.2016, has taken into consideration all the relevant facts. The order passed by ld. MM is a speaking order in which reasons for framing of charges and discharging the accused persons have been discussed in detail. However, at the same time, I am of the view that since the offence u/s 323/34 IPC is triable as a summon case, a notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C is to be served on the petitioners instead of a charge as mentioned in the impugned order.
12 It is well settled law that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. If the impugned order is analyzed in light of the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C, no wrong, illegality, impropriety or irregularity is noticed therein except the fact that a notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C is to be served instead of a charge.
13 In view of above discussion, both the revision CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 10/11 petitions are found to be devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.
One copy of this order be placed in both the files. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order. Files of the revision petitions be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL) TODAY i.e.ON 05th December, 2016 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI 05.12.2016 CR No. 55874/16 & 55849/16 PAGE No. 11/11