Delhi District Court
State vs . Pawan Etc. on 1 October, 2014
1 Criminal Revision No. 67/14
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ASJ-05 (CENTRAL),
ROOM NO. 139: TIS HAZARI, DELHI
CR. No. 67/14
FIR NO: 173/2010
PS: CRIME AND RAILWAY
STATE vs. PAWAN Etc.
State .......Revisionist
Versus
(1) Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Murari Lal,
Vill. Dhanana, PS Bhiwani (Haryana)
(2) Ranjeeta Bhasin,
D/o Late Sh. Sardar Attar Singh Bhasin,
R/o A 107, Ist Floor, Shivaji Vihar,
Near Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi.
(3) Ms. Sobha Gupta,
W/o Sh.Amit Gupta,
J-14, Gali No.40,
Madhu Vihar,
Delhi
(4) Dr.Atul Thapar,
S/o Sh Surender Kumar,
R/o 423, Bhera Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
.......Respondents
Date of institution :14.05.2011
Date of conclusion of arguments / reservation
for order :30.09.2014
Date of pronouncement of order : 01.10.2014
ORDER:
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist/State against the impugned order dated 08.04.2014 passed by the learned CMM 1 of 9 2 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts in case FIR No.173/2010, PS Crime & Railway under Sections 120B/368/468/471 IPC whereby the learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondent Nos.1-3 under Section 120-B read with Section 368 IPC, 368 read with Section 120-B IPC and against respondent No. 4 under Section 465/417 IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that SI S. Srinivasan received a secret information in the first week of December 2010 that accused Pawan Kumar indulges in illegal kidnapping, purchasing and selling of children. On 19.12.2010 at about 8.00 AM, one secret informer came to the office of the IO and disclosed that few days back accused Pawan had sold one baby of 8-10 days to accused Ranjeeta and on that day i.e on 19.12.2010 he was also going to sell another 8-9 months old infant boy to accused Ranjeeta. On receipt of this information, raiding party was constituted and at about 9.45 PM at Shivaji Vihar near Hanuman Mandir, accused Pawan and Ranjeeta were apprehended with an infant of 8-9months in the lap of accused Pawan. The infant was taken into possession and on interrogation, accused Pawan and Ranjeeta disclosed about the purchase of the infant recovered from them from one Javed @ Kalia for Rs.1,50,000/-. Accused Ranjeeta also disclosed that she was running an Anathalaya for children and earlier also she had purchased one baby of 8-10 days and had sold the same to accused no.3Shobha who had further sold the said infant to one issue less lady for Rs.1,80,000/-. The case FIR was registered u/ss 365/368/120B IPC against accused Pawan and Ranjeeta. During investigation, accused Shobha was also apprehended who was also found involved in these activities and disclosed that she had sold the aforesaid infant to one Gupta family. She also disclosed that she was running an NGO in the name of Child Care and accused Anupama Lal had contacted her for a child for a known person who wanted a child for his issueless daughter. She along with her associate accused Anupama Lal had sold a female baby of 8-10 days to one Mamta Aggarwal d/o Sh. Tarsem Lal 2 of 9 3 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 Gupta for Rs.1,80,000/-. For this purpose, she had contacted accused Ranjeeta who had arranged one baby from accused Pawan. Accused Ranjeeta and she had then got arranged the requisite documents regarding the said baby girl from Kamlesh Medical Centre whose doctor (accused Dr. Atul Thapar) was known to accused Ranjeeta. The amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was distributed between accused Ranjeeta, accused Pawan, accused Dr.Atul Thapar, accused Anupama and accused Shobha. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Shobha Gupta, a baby girl of 8-10 days was recovered from Sh.Tarsem Lal Gupta (father of Smt. Mamta Aggarwal). Sh.Tarsem Lal Gupta was also interrogated who disclosed that his daughter Mamta Aggarwal was issueless and was a resident of Kenya and she had come to India. Since she was interested in adopting a child, accused Anupama was contacted who was working with Bal Vihar. Accused Anupama informed them regarding the adoption procedure and the legal formalities attached with it. Subsequently, accused Anupama and accused Shobha contacted him and told him that a girl child was available and demanded Rs.1,80,000/- for preparation of the legal documents qua the adoption. On 09.12.2010, accused Anupama and accused Shobha had handed over him a baby girl and gave in writing the handing over of the baby girl to him. On 13.12.2010 , accused Shobha Gupta and accused Anupama contacted him to bring the baby girl to Kamlesh Medical Centre. When Tarsem Lal Gupta reached Kamlesh Medical Centre with his daughter and baby girl, they found accused Shobha Gupta and accused Anupama already present there. They took them inside the hospital where the doctor obtained their signatures on two blank pages of Hospital Patient Contract Form. On 15.12.2010, accused Shobha Gupta and accused Anupama handed over discharge slip of Kamlesh Medical Centre in the name of Smt. Mamta Aggarwal as patient admitted on 11.12.2010 and discharged on 12.12.2010 having delivered a baby girl on 11.12.2010 at 10.50 PM.
3. Further investigation was carried out during which accused Dr.Atul Thapar 3 of 9 4 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 was interrogated. He produced Admission Register maintained in the hospital of the year 2010. On checking the entries, name of Smt. Mamta Aggarwal was found in the register as per which, one Dr. Jyoti had got her delivered a baby girl. Accused Dr. Atul Thapar also produced a register maintained in the hospital in which information given to MCD online after birth of a baby in the hospital is recorded. On inspection, an entry in the month of December 2010 in the name of 'Mamta Aggarwal W/o Ashish Aggarwal, 38/F, 10.50 PM , 2.5 kg, 11.12.2010, female, normal r/o C-118 Vikas Puri' was found. Accused Dr. Atul Thapar also produced case sheet running into four pages of the hospital in which first page was of blank Hospital Patient Contract in which name of Mamta Aggarwal C/o Dr. Mehta, MD was found. The second page was of authorization for medical/surgical treatment consented by Mamta Aggarwal, signed by her and witnessed by her father was found. After interrogation, accused Dr.Atul Thapar was arrested and Sections 420/468 IPC were added. On further interrogation, accused Dr. Atul Thapar disclosed that he is running Kamlesh Medical Centre at Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and Doctors used to come to his clinic with their patients. Dr. Mehta also used to come to his clinic with her patients and Dr.Mehta had contacted him for obtaining a Birth Certificate and Discharge Certificate of the hospital. He thereafter had called the parents along with the child and got their signatures on blank form and had made a fake entry in the hospital register and had also informed MCD regarding birth of child in the hospital for which he had received Rs. 10,000/-.
4. During further investigation, accused Ranjeeta also disclosed the role of Dr.Sunita Mehta of Yashodha Clinic from whom she had got the documents regarding the baby girl given to Smt. Mamta Aggarwal prepared from Kamlesh Medical Centre. Accused Ranjeeta Bhasin also got recovered a baby girl sold by her in the month of June 2010 for Rs.50,000/- to one Smt. Daljeet Kaur for which till date, she had not handed over documents of 4 of 9 5 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 adoption. Another girl child of four years was recovered from the house of accused Pawan Kumar given by accused Ranjeeta to him. Thereafter, hue and cry notice along with the description of the recovered children were sent to Children Homes/Orphanages to trace information regarding the recovered children but to no avail. In the course of investigation, Dr.Jyoti Thapar, wife of accused Dr. Atul Thapar was also interrogated who disclosed that her husband /accused Dr. Atul Thapar was looking after the entire administrative work of the hospital and he was also the owner of the hospital. In this regard receptionist of Kamlesh Medical Centre was also interrogated who corroborated the information given by Dr.Jyoti Thapar and further stated that doctors from outside the hospital also attended the hospital with their patients and cases. Dr. Sunita Mehta was running her own clinic by the name of Yashodha Clinic and since she had no facility for delivery cases and online MCD registration facility, she used to come regularly with her patients for delivery. On 13.12.2010, on the instructions of Dr. Sunita Mehta and Dr. Atul Thapar, she had made fake entries in the name of Smt. Mamta Aggarwal on 11.12.2010 who was never admitted for her delivery. Similar statements were also given by the other staff members of Kamlesh Medical Centre.
5. Thereafter, the original birth certificate in the name of the baby girl alleged to have been born on 11.12.2010 at Kamlesh Medical Centre from the lions of Smt. Mamta Aggarwal and Ashish Aggarwal was obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, Birth and Death, Najafgarh Zone and further investigation conducted during which CDR of all the accused persons (Pawan Kumar, Ranjeeta Bhasin, Shobha Gupta and Dr.Atul Thapar) were obtained and they were found to be regularly in contact with each other. Information was also sought from Ministry of Woman and Child Development regarding Nav Jyoti Anathalaya run by accused Ranjeeta which was found to be not registered. Accused Dr. Sunita Mehta was arrested subsequently and accused Anupama Lal culd not be arrested as she had absconded.
5 of 9 6 Criminal Revision No. 67/14
6. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order for framing of charges against respondent nos.1 to 3 under Section 120-B read with Section 368 IPC, 368 read with Section 120-B IPC and against respondent No. 4 under Section 465/417 IPC. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, present revision petition was filed by the State.
7. I have heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and have gone through the trial court record with utmost care.
8. It has been contended by learned APP for the State that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality. The learned Trial Court has ignored material facts and documents while passing the impugned order dated 08.04.2014. The impugned order of the learned CMM should therefore be set aside and charges for the offence under Section 120 B read with Sections 368/420/466/467/468/471 IPC be framed against accused Dr. Atul Thapar and charges under Sections 120 B/420/466/467/468/471 IPC be framed against accused Pawan, Ranjeeta Bhasin and Shobha Gupta.
9. Per contra, it has been urged by learned counsels for the accused persons that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and considering the material on record same should be sustained and upheld.
10. I have meticulously gone through the material placed on record . The law regarding framing of charge is well settled and has been time and again reiterated by the various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs N. Suresh Rajan and Others reported as 2014 Crl. L.J. 1444 has held that :
"True, it is that at the time of consideration of the 6 of 9 7 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 applications for discharge, the court can not act as a mouth piece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order on discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. Reference in this connection can be made to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. V.State of Utttar Pradesh & Anr. , AIR 2013 SC 52:(2012 AIR SW6171), in which, after analyzing various decisions on the point, this Court endorsed the following view taken in Onkar Nath Mishra V.State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 2 SCC 561 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 2014: 2008 AIR SCW 96): 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 this stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on 7 of 9 8 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 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 the 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."
11. So far as accused Pawan Kumar is concerned, the learned Trial Court has framed charges only under Section 368/120B IPC against him which has not been challenged by him. I am in conformity with the learned counsel for the accused Pawan Kumar that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that accused Pawan Kumar was involved in cheating and dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property to him. Similarly, there is no evidence whatsoever regarding him indulging in preparation/use of any forged document as genuine or to cheat any person after preparing such a document. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the learned APP for the State that the impugned order qua the accused Pawan is illegal or perverse. Accordingly impugned order dated 8.4.2011 against the accused/respondent Pawan is upheld.
12. Qua accused Ranjeeta Bhasin, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges for commission of offences under Sections 465/420/120B IPC apart from offences under Section 368/120B IPC. As per the allegations and the evidence collected on record accused Ranjeeta Bhasin was instrumental in preparation of documents like fake admission to Kamlesh Medical Center, discharge slip, entry in the Admission Register and Register maintained qua information given to MCD online. She was also a tool in inducing the beneficiaries (concerned persons who received children) to part with substantial amounts with a promise to deliver 8 of 9 9 Criminal Revision No. 67/14 legal adoption documents.
13. The role of accused Shobha Gupta was also similar to that of accused Ranjeeta Bhasin and the record prima facie reveals that both of them used to work in tandem. Hence, accused Shobha Gupta is also liable to be charged under Sections 420/465/120B IPC in addition to charges u/s 368/120-B IPC framed vide impugned order.
14. Regarding accused Dr. Atul Thapar, there is sufficient material and documents on record that he forged and manufactured a number of documents to create record of birth of the girl child given to Smt.Mamta Aggarwal who did not deliver any baby girl herself. As per the allegations, he also gave wrong information to MCD online to procure false birth certificate of the said baby girl alleged to have been born at his hospital Kamlesh Medical Centre which was under his administration. Hence, I am of the opinion that charges under Sections 420/465/468/471/120B IPC are required to be framed against him.
15. Revision file be consigned to record room and trial court record be sent back with copy of this order.
Announced in the open court, Today on 1.10.2014 (Hemani Malhotra) Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Central)/THC/Delhi 9 of 9