Delhi District Court
Satish Sharma And Anr vs State And Anr on 29 May, 2025
DLST010152462024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 564/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Satish Sharma
S/o Krishan Kumar Sharma
R/o Flat No. 218, MIG Flats,
Suraj Apartments,
Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi.
2. Harshvardhan Sharma
S/o Sh. Satish Sharma
R/o Flat No. 218, MIG Flats,
Suraj Apartments,
Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi.
..............Revisionist
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
(Through Director of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Ms. Krishna Sharma
R/o Sh. Khoriya Mohalla, Jewar,
Dist. Gautambudhha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh
..........Respondents
Instituted on : 23.05.2025
Reserved on : 23.05.2025
Pronounced on : 29.05.2025
Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 1 / 12
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29
17:41:00
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present revision petition U/s 399/397 Cr.P.C r/w Section 440/438 BNSS preferred on behalf of revisionists Sh. Satish Sharma and Sh. Harshvardhan Sharma against the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. ACJM (South), Saket Courts in case FIR No. 66/2021, PS Saket whereby charge for commission of offences U/s 506(Part-I)/509/341/34 IPC was directed to be framed against them.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
FIR No. 66 for the offences U/s 506/509/341/34 IPC was lodged at PS Saket on 18.03.2021 on the basis of written complaint of complainant Smt. Krishna Sharma (respondent no.2 herein). After completion of investigation, both the revisionists were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences U/s 506/509/341/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken by Ld. Magistrate vide order dated 06.07.2022. After compliance U/s 207 Cr.P.C., matter was fixed for consideration on the point of charge. In the meanwhile, an application U/s 239 Cr.P.C. praying for discharge was moved on behalf of accused persons. After hearing arguments from both the sides, Ld. ACJM (South) dismissed the application seeking discharge and directed to frame charge for commission of offences U/s 506(Part-I)/509/341/34 IPC against them. That order is being assailed by way of present revision petition.
3. Arguments heard.
4. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionists that the Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 2 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29 17:41:07 +0530 revisionist Satish Sharma was having three sons namely Amit, Manoj and Harshvardhan (revisionist no.2). It has been submitted that Amit got married with Ms. Pooja Kaushik D/o Sh. Rambir Kaushik in the year 2013. It has been submitted that Smt. Pooja got registered a case U/s 498A/354/376 IPC against Amit and his family members including revisionists herein however, they got acquitted in that case. It has been submitted that Pooja alongwith her father had filed fabricated documents in that litigation and for that reason, two separate FIRs were registered against them. It has been submitted that the complainant Smt. Krishna Sharma got registered an FIR against revisionists and other accused persons at Noida in March 2021 for commission of offence U/s 498A IPC and other offences. It has been submitted that in that FIR, she has stated that she had got married with Amit @ Manoj S/o Sh. Satish @ Sanjay. It has been submitted that she was not even aware that Amit & Manoj are different people. It has been submitted that present FIR was registered on the basis of complainant of Smt. Krishna Sharma wherein Sh. Rambir Kaushik and one security guard namely Sh. Akhilesh Mishra have been cited as witnesses. It has been submitted that statement of the complainant was also recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that there is one CCTV footage of the incident on record wherein it is clear that no offence was committed against Sh. Rambir Kaushik. It has been submitted that Ld. ACJM (South) in the impugned order has also observed to that effect however, she has tried to segregate the transaction which is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that perusal of CCTV footage makes it clear that all the witensses including the complainant have lied during investigation. It has been submitted that offence U/s 341 IPC cannot be stated as having been made out in view of clear CCTV footage to the contrary. It has been Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 3 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29 17:41:14 +0530 submitted that for making out a case for commission of offence U/s 506 IPC, it is settled law that the word spoken by the accused should cause alarm to the other persons but perusal of statement of the complainant on the basis of which present FIR was registered as well her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. given to Ld. Magistrate does not show that any such alarm was caused to her. It has been submitted that as far as commission of offence U/s 509 IPC is concerned, though the complainant has vaguely stated in her statement given to police as well in her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C that certain objectionable words were uttered against her however none of the two alleged eye witnesses namely Sh. Rambir Kaushik and Sh. Akhilesh Mishra have said anything on this particular aspect. It has been submitted that this false case has been registered against them by the complainant to harass them and that same should be seen in the light of the other case registered by her as well as the cases registered against Sh. Rambir Kaushik and his daughter. During the course of arguments, it was stated by revisionist no.2 that he was not even knowing the complainant. Ld. Counsel has relied upon following judgments:-
(a) Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 8/2022;
(b) Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 472/2021;
(c) Rekha Vohra Bhalla Vs. State And Others, Crl. M.C. 505/2020.
5. Ld. Substitute Addl. PP has stated that there was no illegality in the order dated 09.10.2024 of Ld. ACJM (South). He has prayed for dismissal of revision petition.
Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 4 / 12
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29
17:41:22
+0530
6. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant has submitted that wife of revisionist no.2 had got an FIR U/s 376 IPC registered against the brother of complainant in March 2021 so as to pressurize her not to file any complainant against her husband. It has been submitted that she was from the same village as that of complainant. It has been submitted that revisionists have deliberately concealed this material fact. He has placed on record copy of FIR No. 29/21, PS Mahila Thana registered at Noida at the instance of complainant wherein Section 498A/323/376/354/504/307/506/342/494/324/406/384 IPC alongwith Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been invoked. Both the revisionist are also named as accused in that FIR. He has also placed on record copy of FIR No. 79/21, U/s 376/506 IPC PS Pul Prahlad Pur registered in Delhi on 04.03.2021 by one Ms. 'B' against one Sita Ram S/o Sh. Laxman who is stated to be real brother of the complainant. It has been submitted that order dated 09.10.2024 has been passed by Ld. ACJM (South) after carefully going through the CCTV footage which supports her case.
7. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record. I have also gone through the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for revisionists.
8. Relevant portion of impugned order is being reproduced below for ready reference:-
"6. The CCTV footage was played in the Court. It is clear in the footage that the accused persons as well as the victims were present in the Court at the time of the incident. Further, it is also visible that Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 5 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29
17:41:29
+0530
there was a exchange of communication between the parties. However, as rightly averred by the accused persons, it cannot be seen in the footage that victim Rambir was pushed on the ground and he was held by his collar / neck by the accused persons. The fundamental ground for discharge as averred by the accused persons is that the entire case is solely based upon the CCTV footage of the date of incident outside the Court Room No. 311, however, said CCTV footage does not show the incident as alleged by the complainant and Rambir. Consequentially, the question is whether the accused persons can be discharged only on the sole ground that the CCTV footage does not corroborate the entire version of the complainant? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons:
a) Firstly, even if the argument of the accused persons is admitted that no assault of the victim Rambir is made out in the present matter, it is pertinent to note that the accused persons have not been charged for assaulting victim Rambir under any relevant provision of IPC. No section for alleged assault of the victim Rambir has been invoked.
b) Secondly, the accused persons have been charged for criminal intimidation of victim Rambir punishable under Section 506 of IPC, for uttering words intending to insult the modesty of the complainant punishable under Section 509 of IPC and for wrongfully restraining victim Rambir which is punishable under Section 341 IPC. It can be seen in the CCTV footage that both the parties were having an exchange of communication. It is indeed unclear whether it was an abusive altercation. However, the Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 6 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29 17:41:35 +0530 victim has averred in her statement under Section 164 of Code as well as Section 161 of the Code that abuses were given by the accused persons.
This is sufficient toconclude that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons as the statement of the complainant can only be evaluated when given on oath and subjected to proper cross-examination.
c) Thirdly, the presence of the accused persons as well as the victims outside Court Room No. 311 can be seen in the footage. In fact, the same is not denied by both the parties. The statements of the victims and witness Mr. Akhilesh Mishra is also on record which is in conformity with the complaint of the complainant re: criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint. The CCTV footage in juxtaposition with the ocular depositions of the complainant and other witnesses can be evaluated in depth only during trial. The grounds averred by the accused in his discharge application can be best evaluated during trial.
7. On the basis of the above discussion, it is the considered opinion of this Court that prima facie, prosecution material is sufficient to warrant framing of charge under Sections 506 (Part I)/509/341/34 IPC against the accused persons. In view of the same, the present discharge application is dismissed. Put up for framing of charge on 09.01.2024."
9. The grievance of revisionists is that the impugned order has been passed without properly appreciating the material on record including the Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 7 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29
17:41:42
+0530
CCTV footage which as per them, completely falsifies the case of complainant. On the other hand, Ld. Subst. Addl. PP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for complainant have submitted that there was no illegality in the impugned order.
10. In the CCTV footage on record, at 10:06:20, both the revisionists can be seen standing together outside the Court Room. Complainant/ respondent no.2 can be seen coming there wearing a yellowish kurta. At 10:06:34, she can be seen going towards the Court Room and both the revisionists can be seen following her quickly. It is not clear as to whether they had entered inside the Court Room or not due to presence of several advocates/ litigants which has blocked the clear view of the entrance to the Court Room. It is also not clear from it as to whether any communication had taken place between them at that time. Shortly thereafter, both the revisionists can be seen returning to the earlier spot. At 10:07:02, revisionist no.2 Harshvardhan can be seen making a video apparently of Rambir Kaushik. Soon afterwards, it appears that some communication took place between them and both revisionists can be seen charging towards him. Again, it is not clear as to what transpired thereafter. Presence of complainant at that time has not been captured in the footage due to view of entrance to the Court Room having been blocked as mentioned earlier. May be she was present there only. A security guard can also be seen in the frame at 10:07:28. He might not have witnessed the entire incident as per the CCTV footage. At 10:07:31, revisionist no.1 can be seen aggressively pointing towards someone probably Rambir Kaushik or complainant or both. Thereafter, both the revisionists can be seen leaving at 10:07:45.
Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 8 / 12Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29 17:41:48 +0530
11. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there was nothing in the CCTV footage to show that Sh. Rambir Kaushik was wrongfully restrained in any manner. However, this Court is of the view that there is nothing in the CCTV footage to conclusively establish that no such offence had taken place. A person having been voluntarily restrained even for a moment from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed can amount to wrongful restraint punishable u/s 341 IPC.
12. Moving further, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for revisionists that there is nothing in the FIR to indicate that any alarm was caused to the complainant due to alleged use of threatening words by the revisionists. It is settled law that mere extension of threat in itself was not sufficient to make out a case for offence U/s 506 IPC. The essential ingredient is as to whether such a threat has caused alarm in the mind of the victim. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja & Anr vs State of Karnataka & Anr Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015, in which it was held as under:-
"15..........It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant."
(emphasis supplied) Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 9 / 12 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.05.29 17:41:55 +0530
13. As mentioned earlier, complainant had lodged an FIR against several accused persons including the revisionists at NOIDA for commission of various offences including offences u/s 354/384/376 IPC. Both the revisionists as well as complainant alongwith Rambir Kaushik were present in the Court on the fateful day as revisionists had applied for anticipatory bail. Any lady can get alarmed in such a scenario when she is aggressively confronted by two males against whom she had leveled serious allegations a few days ago. It is also to be noted that the body language of revisionists is showing aggression that too within the Court premises where people are expected to behave properly.
14. Similarly, revisionists cannot seek discharge for offence u/s 509 IPC merely because the statements of Rambir Kaushik and Akhilesh Mishra are silent on this aspect. The inconsistency in the case of prosecution on this aspect can be appreciated during trial only.
15. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has also sought to highlight contradictions in the statement of complainant given to police and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. given before Ld. Magistrate. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hazrat Deen Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr., SLP (Crl.)9552/2021, discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. may be a defence however same cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial.
16. Regarding the level of scrutiny of material on record required at the Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 10 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.05.29 17:42:02 +0530 stage of framing of charge in a given case, Hon'ble Apex Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561 held as under:-
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At this stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
17. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. 1996 Cri.LJ 2448 in following words:-
"If on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
18. Applying aforementioned principles to the case at hand and after considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that there was no illegality in the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by Ld. ACJM(South) so Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 11 / 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.29
17:42:09
+0530
as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
19. Before parting with this order, it is to be noted that in the charge framed by Ld. ACJM on 21.05.2025, it has been wrongly mentioned that complainant was wrongfully restrained as the allegation is that Rambir Kaushik was wrongfully restrained. Ld. ACJM (South) is requested to modify the charge accordingly. Digitally signed by Revision petition stands dismissed in above terms. SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.05.29 17:42:13 +0530 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) Court on 29.05.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-06, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi Cr Rev. No. 564/2024 Satish Sharma and Anr. Vs. State And Anr. Page No. 12 / 12