Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Prabh Deep Singh vs State on 13 March, 2023

                  IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL
                 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA:
                     KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.

CR No. 16/2021
CA ID No. 02/2021
CNR No. DLSH01-002020-2021

Prabh Deep Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Devender Singh
R/o A-413, Old Govind Pura,
Delhi                                                         ......... Revisionists

                                              Versus

State                                                         .........Respondent


                         Date of filing    :                27.02.2021
                         Date of arguments :                02.03.2023
                         Date of judgment :                 13.03.2023


                                   JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is preferred by revisionists under Section 397 Cr.PC against the order dt. 02.02.2021 passed by Ld. MM, (Mahila Court), District Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi, in FIR No. 117/2019, PS Shahdara whereby charge under Section 354D/509/341/323 IPC was framed against the revisionist/accused.

2. Complainant in her complaint has stated that she was friend with the accused/revisionist and the revisionist had proposed marriage to her, however, after the parents of the revisionist refused for the said marriage, she decided that she would not talk to the accused/revisionist again and also broke all her contacts with him but the revisionist/accused continuously kept on harassing her and stalking her wherever she went. The revisionist snatched her phone forcibly and checked the same and on resistance he would beat up the complainant. She has further stated that on 12.05.2018, when she was returning to her residence at around 9 pm, the revisionist met her and forcibly tried to snatch her phone and when she resisted he entered the house of the complainant and gave beatings to her on which the father of complainant dialed at 100 number. Police came there and took them to Jagat Puri police station where complainant gave a written complaint. The revisionist and his parents admitted to their mistake and assured that the revisionist would not trouble her in future, however, the complainant has stated that revisionist did not stop his tactics and kept on stalking her. Complainant has further stated that accused also told her that he would run with her and solemnize marriage with her and when she refused, he used to blackmail her by showing her photos and messages and also told that he would not allow her marriage anywhere else.

3. On 12.11.2018, also accused stopped her again. On 27.11.2018, when the complainant was returning to her home with her mother then the CR No. 16/2021 Prabh Deep Singh Vs. State Page 2 of 7 accused who was standing in the street started following her and then on 30.11.2018, the mother of petitioner/revisionist in order to blackmail gave a complaint to Delhi Women Cell. On 04.03.2019, when the complainant was returning from Mandir, the accused stopped her on the way and threatened her. The complainant ran towards her home but the accused / revisionist followed her and kept on ringing the bell of home for one hour. On 03.04.2019, again when the complainant was going to Krishna Nagar, the accused stopped her and gave beatings to her. Complainant has further stated that the accused is also contacting her friends and relatives and defaming her and the accused as well as his parents are blackmailing her since one year. The accused has not stopped following her and blackmailing her despite repeated complaints. Complainant has further stated that due to the fear she has stopped going out of her house and had to leave her job also. On this complaint of the complainant, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed. The statement of the complainant/victim under Section 164 Cr.PC was also recorded. In the said statement, she has stated about the abovesaid allegations. She has also stated that accused keep sitting at the Tailor shop near her home and kept staring at her.

4. On 02.02.2021, after hearing the arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court had framed the charge under Section 354D/509/341/323 IPC against the revisionist. The revisionist has assailed the said order through the present petition.

5. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent/State, however, respondent/State did not prefer to file reply to the revision petition and has straightway addressed the arguments.

6. The present petition has been filed on the following grounds:

(a) That the Trial Court neglected the prime allegations not mentioned in the complaint as well as in the statements in chargesheet and the Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2021 arbitrarily;

(b) That impugned order dated 02.02.2021 do not fulfill the essential ingredients of sections charged against the accused and the material on record is self contradictory;

(c) That the impugned order on charge does not disclose the reasoning behind the imposition of charge under Section 354D/509/341/323 IPC;

(d) That the chargesheet itself discloses that the accused was already been booked in Kalandara under Section 107/51 Cr.PC wherein all the said dates were discussed in final order in Kalandra dated 24.06.2019, and thus, the section 300 Cr.PC is attracted and due to double jeopardy the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence for which a judicial proceeding has already been initiated and concluded;

(e) That the material available in chargesheet being primary evidence do not disclose any material to form charge against the accused/revisionist. The evidence on record in the chargesheet do not show any ingredients in support of charges framed against the accused/revisionist and the Trial Court very formally gone into the material available in the chargesheet wherein the CR No. 16/2021 Prabh Deep Singh Vs. State Page 4 of 7 same does not disclose any of the evidence against the accused/revisionist.

7. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Kishan Rana, Ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as Sh. Vineet Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also perused the trial court record.

8. Ld. counsel for revisionist has taken the ground that the chargesheet itself discloses the accused was already been booked in Kalandara under Section 107/51 Cr.PC wherein the alleged incidents of all the said dates have already been discussed in final order in Kalandra dated 24.06.2019, and thus, section 300 Cr.PC attracted and due to double jeopardy the accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence as another proceeding had already been initiated and concluded. However, this ground is not sufficient to discharge the accused as perusal of complaint shows that complainant has specifically mentioned the dates as well as places where the accused has allegedly followed and stalked her and attempted to foster personal interaction with her despite clear indication of disinterest. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that complainant has also given in detail the way accused had accosted her, stopped her on her way and also beaten her on different dates after she had rejected advances of accused. Further, this court has perused the complaint as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. and the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC of the complainant wherein there are specific allegations that accused had beaten her. I have perused the order of Ld. Trial Court and the ld. Trial Court has passed a CR No. 16/2021 Prabh Deep Singh Vs. State Page 5 of 7 detailed order and from the order of the ld. Trial Court it nowhere appears that the order has been passed without going through the documents available on record and without giving consideration to the material available on record.

9. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, prima facie view has to be formed by the court and detailed order is not required. The ld. Trial Court still has passed a detailed order and has taken into account the role of accused. Even, the order of Ld. Trial Court reveals that for each and every offence, the allegations were separately discussed as charge for offence under Section 354D/509/341/323 IPC was framed against accused. The charge cannot be said to have been framed in a mechanical manner. Copy of one Kalandra regarding one such incident mentioned by complainant is also filed in which copy of MLC of accused/revisionist is also annexed showing simple injury to the complainant. Ld. counsel for accused has argued that as per the photocopy of the MLC of the accused dated 03.04.2019, it is the accused who had suffered injuries i.e. abrasion over his right arm, abrasion over left forearm, abrasion over left cheek and abrasion over right cheek and therefore ld. Trial Court has not taken into account the accused had also suffered injuries. However, merely because the accused has suffered injuries during the incident is no ground to discharge the accused if there are sufficient evidence available on record. The statement of the complainant shows that accused was repeatedly stalking her.

10. Another argument is that the accused was already directed to furnish bond by the concerned Executive Magistrate vide order dated 24.06.2019 and therefore, he cannot be tried again. However, the Kalandara under Section 107/151 Cr.PC for only for maintaining peace for a period of 5 months. It is a settled law that a person who has been tried for an offence cannot be tried again for a same offence. However, proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.PC cannot be said to be same or similar offence. The offence under Section 354D/509/341/323 IPC are fairly different. The principles of double jeopardy is not applicable in such circumstances, as before the concerned Executive Magistrate in the Kalandra under Section 107/151 Cr.PC, he was not tried for the offence under Section 354D/509/341/323 IPC.

11. After considering the documents and material placed on record, I do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court has appreciated all the facts and has passed a reasonable order. Revision petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith trial court record. Revision file be consigned to record room.

   Announced in the open court
   on 13.03.2023                                (KIRAN BANSAL)
                                           ASJ-04/Shahdara/KKD Courts
                                                      Delhi.



CR No. 16/2021                Prabh Deep Singh Vs. State              Page 7 of 7