Delhi District Court
Harshit Wadhwa vs The State on 19 October, 2024
DLNW010100912024
Presented on : 18-10-2024
Registered on : 19-10-2024
Decided on : 19-10-2024
Duration : 0 years, 0 months,
1 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Rev/339/2024
HARSHIT WADHWA
S/o Sh. Ramesh Wadhwa
R/o GP-67, Pitampura, Delhi.
....Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
THE STATE
(NCT of Delhi)
....Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for petitioner : Sh. Anil K. Chhabra
Addl. PP for the State : Sh. Vineet Dahiya
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 1 of 7
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2024.10.19
18:22:38 +0530
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 19-10-2024)
1. Revision petition is filed against framing of charge against the petitioners in pursuance of order dated 15.12.2023. The TCR shows that Ld. Trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner for offence u/s 323/34 IPC.
2. The order is impugned on the ground that there was no allegation against the petitioner in complaint dated 13.06.2018 but his name was supplementary added on false statement made before Ld. MM and despite the fact that IO issued notice u/s 91 CR.P.C for production of documents showing the payment of Rs. 11 Lakhs, the complainant failed. It is further stated that charge against application not made out because there is no MLC showing any injury.
3. The relevant portion of order of Ld. Trial Court is reproduced here in below:
In case titled as B. C. Upreti Vs. State & Anr., Crl. Rev. Petition No. 316/2011, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that "While framing charge, Magistrate is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case, keeping in view the essential ingredients of the offence for which the accused is sought to be cahrged. The obligation to discharge the accused u/s 239 arises when the Magistrate considered the charge against the accused to be groundless. The real test for determining whether the charge is groundless is to find out the materials available on record, even if unrebutted, would not make C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 2 of 7 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2024.10.19 18:22:47 +0530
out any case whatsoever. The word 'groundless' means without any basis or foundation. Where there is even a suspicion about commission of offence, the charge cannot be stated to be groundless.
It is well settled that at the stage of the framing of the cahrge, no roving inquiry is to be made nor the pros and cons of the materials could be weighed in detail as it would tantamount to a mini trial and such is not the scheme of the Court. The reason for this is that the prosecution ought to be allowed to bring its evidence at the trial and the case ought not to be shut out on the threshold when there is a reasonable material for holding trial."
On perusal of the entire chargesheet along with the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC and statement of the complainant u/s 164, it has transpired that the complainant has levelled specific allegations against both the accused persons that on 12.02.2019 at about 08:15 p.m, when the complainant and her friend Anita had gone to the shop of the accused Ramesh Wadhwa, both the accused persons have beaten the complainant and her friend Anita. Therefore, both the accused Ramesh Wadhwa and accused Harshit Wadhwa are prima facie liable to be charged for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC.
Further, the complainant has levelled specific allegation against accused Ramesh Wadhwa that he pressed the chest of the complainant and had torn the suit (kurta) of the complainant. Therefore, accused Ramesh Wadhwa is prima facie liable to the cahrged for the offence u/s 354/354-B IPC. Accused Harshit Wadhwa is discharged for the offence u/s 354/354-B IPC, since no allegation qua Section 354/354B IPC against him is forthcoming in the entire charge sheet.
Lastly, no specific allegation qua insulting the modesty of complainant in terms of provisions of Section 509 IPC is forthcoming from perusal of the chargesheet including the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged that the accused used filthy language against the complainant but no specific 'word' or 'act' or 'gesture' has been mentioned. Therefore, both the accused persons are liable to be discharged for the offence u/s 509 IPC."
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 3 of 7 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2024.10.19 18:22:54 +0530
4. In Bhavna Bhai Vs. Ghanshyam (2020) 2 SCC 217, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that at the time of framing of charge, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. While evaluating the materials strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.
5. In Soma Chakarvarti Vs. State (2007) 5SCC 403, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 10that "It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charge the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
6. On the scope of power of Higher Court in revision, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 that:
"8. Before examining the merits of the present case, we must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of the power which the courts including the High Court can exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 4 of 7 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2024.10.19 18:23:03 +0530
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. Right from the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 561], which was reiterated with approval in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], the courts have stated the principle that if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. It is further stated that the legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to have been committed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 5 of 7 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2024.10.19 18:23:13 +0530 of each case. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed in order to collect materials for proving the offence. In Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the Court also stated that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of an FIR should be exercised, there are circumstances where the Court may be justified in exercising such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by the police; where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code; and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Despite stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously uttered a note of caution to the effect that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court also warned that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice."
7. Coming to the facts of the case, although complainant has not mentioned about any act of the petitioner in the complaint on which FIR was registered, but it is specifically mentioned to take action against son of co-accused. The claim that name of C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 6 of 7 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2024.10.19 18:23:20 +0530 petitioner came for the first time in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as an improvement is not correct because the statement of independent witness who was with the complainant on the date of incident has specifically stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded on 13.02.2019, that the petitioner was also present with his father and he alongwith his father gave beatings to complainant. Therefore, there was sufficient material before ld. Trial Court to frame charge under Section 323/34 IPC. Hence, I do not find any illegality warranting any interference under the revision.
8. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2024.10.19
18:23:27
Date : 19.10.2024 +0530
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/19.10.2024
Dictated on : 19.10.2024 Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Transcribed on : 19.10.2024 VIKRAM Date:
checked on : 19.10.2024 2024.10.19
18:23:31 +0530
Signed on : 19.10.2024
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/19.10.2024
C.R. No. 339/2024 Harshit Wadhwa Vs. The State Page no. 7 of 7