Delhi District Court
Sadhu Ram & Ors. vs . State & Anr. on 25 April, 2023
Sadhu Ram & Ors. vs. State & Anr.
CNR No.: DLCT01-004852-2023
Crl. Revision No. 208/2023
25.04.2023
Present : Mr. R.K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
1. In this criminal revision petition, the petitioners challenged order dated 21.02.2023 whereby the trial Court condoned the delay in filing of charge-sheet and taken cognizance of offences and issued summons to the petitioners.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the present case was lodged as a counter-blast to the case, vide FIR No. 274/2014 dated 09.06.2014 under Section 354A/354D/506/509/34 IPC registered at PS Subzi Mandi on the complaint of the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 against brother of the complainant. He contended that earlier, the complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, vide CC No. 103/2001 titled as 'Mona vs. Sadhu Ram & Ors.' which was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Pawan Singh Rajawat, Ld. MM, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 18.07.2014 and thereafter, the complainant withdrawn the complaint case. He contended that the complainant filed this case on false allegations. He contended that FIR was lodged on 24.11.2014. However, the prosecution filed charge-sheet after more than 4 years on 04.02.2019. He contended that there was no substantive evidence against the petitioners and therefore, they were placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court did not apply judicial mind. He contended that the prosecution did not file any application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith the charge-sheet. He contended that the trial Court asked IO to move an application for condonation of delay and thereafter, condoned the delay in breach of provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. He contended that there was no sufficient cause and reason for delay in filing of the charge-sheet. He contended that initiation of departmental enquiry against IO is not a sufficient cause. He relied on judgment in Shiva Shankar Baba vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, CBCID, OCU Police Station-II, Chennai & Anr., Crl. O.P. No. 23806/2021 decided on 17.10.2022. He contended that the petitioner No. 3 was present at his work place at the alleged time and date of incident and in that regard, he has relied upon attendance-sheet. He contended that name of the petitioner No. 1 is not mentioned in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He contended that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident. He contended that the complainant did not make any call at 100. He contended that local police registered FIR against the petitioners in connivance with the complainant.
4. On 24.11.2014, the case FIR was registered under Section 354A and 509 read with Section 34 IPC at PS Subzi Mandi on the complaint, inter alia, against the petitioners. However, charge-sheet was filed on 04.02.2019.
5. On 17.11.2022, IO SI Ravi Kumar filed an application for seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was transferred to other police station in Special Cell and he forgotten to submit the charge-sheet before the trial Court.
6. The relevant part of impugned order dated 21.02.2023 is as under:
"The present FIR has been registered on 24.11.2014 on the basis of complaint dated 24.11.2014 lodged by the complainant against proposed accused persons and after the completion of investigation by the IO, the charge-sheet was filed on 04.02.2019 after the delay of approximately 1.5 years.
Having regard to the provisions of Section 469 and 472 CrPC, the charge-sheet filed by IO is clearly barred by the limitation u/s 468 (2)(c) CrPC.
In the landmark judgment of "Arun Vyas vs. Anita Vyas reported as AIR 1999 SC 2071", it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that any finding recorded thereby holding that a complaint is barred by limitation without considering the provisions of Section 473 CrPC is deficient and defective. While referring the part two of Section 473 CrPC, it has been observed that the same has two limbs. The first limb confers power on every competent Court to take cognizance of an offence ever after the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and the second limb empowers such a Court to take cognizance of offence if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. The interest of justice demands that the Court should protect the oppressed and punish the oppressor / offender.
In the case u/s 498A IPC, the wife is invariably will be oppressed having been subjected to cruelty by the husband and the in laws. It is, therefore, appropriate for the Courts, in case of delayed complaints, to construte liberally Section 473 CrPC in favour of a wife, if on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.
In the case in hand, after being turned out of the matrimonial house, the complainant lodged the complaint against the accused persons. The delay in filing of the charge sheet has occurred due to fault on the part of the IO. The complainant cannot be made to suffer for the inaction / negligence on the part of the IO. Further, no act of court can cause prejudice to any person (complainant herein). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the charge sheet is condoned and the cognizance is hereby taken. On perusal of case file, I find there is sufficient material to proceed further. Heard. Material lying on record. Perused. Perusal of the same reflects that there are specific allegation against all the accused persons charge-sheeted including mentioned in column No. 12. Therefore, I hereby take cognizance of the offence. Issue summons to all accused persons, returnable for 11.04.2023."
7. As regards contention that the application for condonation of delay should accompany the charge- sheet, it can be stated that Section 473 Cr.P.C. enjoins a duty upon the trial Court to consider that the delay is properly explained or it is necessary to do in the interests of justice. The trial Court cannot refuse to consider an application for condonation of delay filed after filing of the charge-sheet.
8. The only legal requirement is that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioners before condonation of delay which has been done in the present case.
9. As regards contention that there was no proper explanation for the delay in filing of the charge- sheet, it can be stated that there are two aspects under Section 473 Cr.P.C. Firstly, the trial Court can condone the delay, if it is properly explained and secondly, it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
10. In the present case, the complainant reported the incident to the local police without any delay. IO SI Ravi Kumar concluded the investigation on 08.05.2015. He should have filed the charge-sheet within limitation period. The complainant had no control over inaction of Investigating Officer. The complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of inaction of Investigating Officer.
11. This is a case pertaining to offences committed against modesty and dignity of a woman. The proceedings pertaining to such offences cannot be terminated in this manner. Investigating Officer kept the file of the charge-sheet with him and did not file the charge-sheet within the statutory period. The delay in filing of charge-sheet was properly explained. Moreover, it was necessary to condone the delay in filing of the charge-sheet in the interests of the justice.
12. This Court does not find any material illegality, perversity or patent legal error in condonation of delay by the trial Court.
13. As regards contention that the petitioners were placed in Column No. 12 and there was no substantive evidence against them, it can be stated that at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence, the trial Court must apply its judicial mind to the materials on record. The trial Court considered the allegations made in the complaint and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitioners.
14. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error or illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance of offences and summoning of the petitioners.
15. As regards contentions that the present case was a counter-blast to the case initiated by daughter of the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 3 was not present at the alleged date and time of the incident and the allegations made in the complaint are false, it can be stated that it is not the stage to consider the merits of the defence of the petitioners and such defences can be raised at appropriate stage. However, such defences cannot be subject matter of consideration at the stage of cognizance and summoning.
16. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.
17. A copy of the present order alongwith the trial Court record be sent to the trial Court.
18. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.04.25 13:17:26 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II ASJ-03, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi NK 25.04.2023