Delhi District Court
State vs . Saurabh Anand & Ors. on 17 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 1110/06
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 323/342/34 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 16.10.2006
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0313232010
C C No. : 1635/2/10
State vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors.
A-1 Saurabh Anand
S/o Late Sh. Bharat Bhushan Anand
R/o A-4/155, DDA Flats,
Paschim Vihar
Delhi
A-2 Deepak
S/o Late Sh. K. L. Pascricha
R/o V-41, Bhagwati Vihar
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi
A-3 Vivek Sareen
S/o Y. P. Sareen
R/o 15/10 Punjabi Bagh Extension
New Delhi
............. Accused
Munna Kumar
S/o Shankar Mandal
R/o 210A, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Camp
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 27.09.2007
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 1110/06 u/s. 323/342/34 IPC
State Vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors. 1/6
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 26.11.2014
Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2014
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 323/342/34 IPC.
2. The brief story of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2006 in the night hours at WZ-12, Hari Singh Park, Revose Mineral Water Factory, Paschim Vihar within the jurisdiction of Police Station Paschim Vihar, the accused persons namely Deepak, Vivek and Saurabh in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully confined the complainant Munna Kumar and Bablu inside the above said factory and voluntarily caused simple hurt to both of them with a blunt object. Thus, accused persons are alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 323/342/34 IPC.
FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 1110/06 under section 323/342/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused persons were summoned to face trial and they were supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 1110/06 u/s. 323/342/34 IPC State Vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors. 2/6
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 323/342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Paschim Vihar, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 12.10.2009. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. Let us first examine the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of this case. Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 IPC, as wrongfully restraining any person in a manner so as to prevent him from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits.
7. Hurt is defined under Section 319 IPC as bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person.
8. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 6 witnesses of which Munna Kumar and Bablu are the injured persons. Injured Bablu has compromised the matter with the accused. The offence under Section 323/342 IPC has already been compounded qua the injured Bablu vide his separate statement dated 23.04.2012.
9. The second injured / complainant Munna Kumar has remained unserved even through DCP and could not be served despite best efforts. Accordingly, name of this witness was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 26.11.2014.
10.Prosecution has examined only one witness i.e Retired SI Rajmal who proved the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
11.All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the incident, sufficient only to prove that Munna Kumar and Bablu had FIR No. 1110/06 u/s. 323/342/34 IPC State Vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors. 3/6 received injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS- Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.1110/06.
12.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs." reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In cases where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
13.As the complainant /injured Munna Kumar has remained unserved even through DCP concerned and the other injured Bablu has compromised the matter, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused persons and that the injuries to the above said persons were caused by the accused persons. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 323/342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, PE was closed.
14.Since nothing incriminating had come in evidence against the accused, recording of statement of accused was dispensed with.
15.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for FIR No. 1110/06 u/s. 323/342/34 IPC State Vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors. 4/6 achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts."
16.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
17.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgments, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 323/342/34 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
Final Order FIR No. 1110/06 u/s. 323/342/34 IPC State Vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors. 5/6
18.Since the complainant/injured Munna Kumar has remained unserved and the other injured Bablu has compromised the matter and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused persons qua offences u/s 323/342/34 IPC and hereby releases the accused persons under sections 323/342/34 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
19.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused persons are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of like amount.
ANNOUNCED ON 17.12.2014
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court/17.12.2014
FIR No. 1110/06 u/s. 323/342/34 IPC
State Vs. Saurabh Anand & Ors. 6/6