Delhi District Court
Dalip Rana (Advocate) vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 7 September, 2016
Case No.58413/2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT)-06, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Case No.58413/2016
Criminal Revision No. 86/2016
Dalip Rana (Advocate)
C/o Dalip Rana & Associates,
Having Office at:
Chamber No. L-24,
PS Rathi Block, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi-110054 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Surender Singh Rana
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o Gali No.4, Shastri Colony,
Muhana Road, Sonipat,
Haryana .....Respondent
Instituted on : 30th August 2016
Arguments on : 7th September 2016
Decided on : 7th September 2016
ORDER
1. This revision U/S 397 & 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is preferred against order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the Court of Sh. Babru Bhan, Ld MM-07, (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby in a proceeding pertaining to FIR No. 240/10 PS Subzi Mandi, accused (petitioner herein) has been charged for commission of offence u/s 186/353/506 IPC.
2. This court has heard submissions advanced by Sh. Gaurav Meena, Ld counsel, petitioner in person as well as Sh. Himanshu Garg, Addl. PP for the State.
3. In brief, relevant facts leading to the filing of this revision Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 1 out of 7 Pages Case No.58413/2016 petition are that a FIR No. 240/10 u/s 186/353/506 IPC was registered on 22nd September 2010 at the instance of complainant Surender Singh Rana. Petitioner Dalip Rana is an advocate and complainant S.S. Rana is LDC, Archological Survey of India, Delhi Circle. On 21 st September 2010, both were appearing in a case titled as 'Jagan vs Union of India' Suit No. 6/98. At 10 am, both were standing outside the concerned court of Sh. Ajay Goel, Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 41, Tis Hazari Courts. Case of Complainant is that on seeing him outside the court room, Sh. Dalip Rana, lost his tamper and held him by collar, started beating him up and threatened him. Officials, who were accompanying him, rescued him from his clutches.
4. On 21st November 2011, after conclusion of investigation, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed by Incharge P.S. wherein accused (petitioner herein) Dalip Rana was placed in column no. 12. Report of the officer incharge, PS, noted that if the court deemed fit, advocate Dalip Rana be prosecuted by initiating trial. After hearing IO, counsel for complainant and prosecutor, on 1st February 2012, Ld trial court did not concur with the opinion of the IO and observed that the case required further investigation particularly with respect to complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C & IO was directed to further investigate the matter.
5. Thereafter, on 11th May 2012 complainant filed a protest petition against final report on 20th April 2013 and a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C written by the Superintendent, Archeology Department ASI, Safdarjung Town, New Delhi and forwarded to the trial court by office of CMM, Central district. Vide order dated 9 th December 2013, Ld trial court Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 2 out of 7 Pages Case No.58413/2016 while taking cognizance for the offence u/s 186/353/506 IPC made following observations:-
"The complainant has filed protest application against the final report for not charge-sheeting the accused and submitted that accused had manhandled and threatened him while he was on Government duty and prays that accused be summoned. A separate complaint u/s 195 CrPC has also been filed before Ld. CMM (Central) by Superintendent Archaeologist of Archaeological Survey of India as same is mandatory for taking cognizance for certain offences mentioned in Section 195 CrPC. At the stage of cognizance, the Court has to see the prima facie nature of allegations and veracity of the same cannot be tested at that stage. The present case is also at the stage of cognizance. The companions alongwith his two colleagues have case serious allegations against the accused of obstructing them in discharge of their public duty being public servant. It is settled principle of law that even testimony of single witness is enough for proving or disproving a case and need for corroboration arises only if Court has some doubts upon the said version. The report of IO that a counter complaint from Dalip Rana was also received against the complainant in the present case. Instead of taking action upon the complainant from Dalip Rana was is accused in the present case, IO choose filing the final report with remarks Not-chargesheet for want of evidence. But while doing so, he failed to taken into account the statements of three persons recorded by him only who are admittedly the eyewitnesses of the attack upon the complainant Surender Singh."
Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 3 out of 7 Pages Case No.58413/2016
6. On 10th November, 2015 after hearing arguments of both the parties, Ld trial court ordered framing of charges for the offence u/s 186/353/506 IPC. Thereafter, charge was served to the accused on 26 th May, 2016 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order on charge, Ld trial court made following observations :-
"The complainant is a government employee who had come to the court to appear on behalf of Archaeological Survey of India. He has clearly stated that he was assaulted by the accused. His version is supported by the statement of two other witnesses ie. Chandi Dass Mishra and Satbir Singh. The arguments advanced by the accused that no internal injury was found upon the person of the complainant is not sufficient at this stage to exonerate him because it is not necessary that every assault will result in external injuries. The fact that matter was not reported to the concerned Civil Court is not sufficient to accept the arguments that complainant has made a false complaint. The testimony of three witnesses is sufficient to make out a prima facie case. There is sufficient material on record to frame charge against accused persons for offence u/s 186/353/506 IPC."
7. Ground raised by the petitioner are that the impugned order is perverse and against the facts of the case and has been passed mechanically without application of mind. It is submitted that Ld trial court relied upon presumption and did not appreciate that during investigation no occurrence of the offence was revealed and impugned order has been passed in hurry in order to dispose of trial expeditiously. It is submitted Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 4 out of 7 Pages Case No.58413/2016 that Ld trial court did not appreciate medical evidence and no injury was found despite allegations of brutal beating which makes the case of the complainant perse false. It is stated that as per section 186 IPC dealing with the obstruction of public servant in discharge of function whereas no such allegation was revealed by the complainant in his complaint and even regarding any attempt or any threat as regards the discharge of public function and there are no allegations in the complaint regarding attempt or any threat obstruct him from the discharge of duty of that complainant was allegedly standing outside the court no. 4, in discharge of official duty or was about to discharge any of public function.
8. It is submitted that Ld trial court did not appreciate observation made in Union of India vs Praful Kumar Samal 1, in support of submission that by and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, then he would be fully within his right to discharge the accused. Reliance was also placed upon Dr. Kamala Rajaram vs Dy. SP Office of SP (Rural), Neyyattinkara & Ors2 wherein it was held by the Kerala High Court that if accusation and material are not sufficient to attract culpability, the indictee should not be compelled to unnecessarily stand the trauma of trial and it was further observed therein that in a summons case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, Section 251 read with Section 258 Cr.P.C does clothe the learned Magistrate with the requisite power to discontinue 1 AIR 1979 SC 366 2 (2006 Cr.L.J. 1447 Kerala) Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 5 out of 7 Pages Case No.58413/2016 further proceedings and release the accused at the stage of S.251 Cr.P.C or later, if the learned Magistrate felt that the allegations and the materials placed before him do not justify continuance of the proceedings against the indictee and directing continuance of proceedings when allegations and materials collected do not justify such continuance will be the worst form of injustice. Reliance was also placed upon Sajjan Kumar vs CBI, in support of submission that if accusation of the accused is arising out of prosecution story but no grave accusation arises out of prosecution case, there shall be no use to put petitioner into unnecessary trauma of trial.
9. Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld Addl. PP for State submitted that there is no defect in the impugned order of framing of charge as well as in the order on charge. It is submitted that complainant S.S. Rana had made specific allegations that accused caught hold of his collar, beaten him and threatened him with dire consequences and thereby obstructed him from attending his official duty. If attending the Court, his duty was to attend the case in the court on behalf of Department Archeology Survey of India.
10. On perusal of record, this Court finds that version narrated by the complainant S.S. Rana in his complaint is supported by the statement of two witnesses namely Chand Dass Mishra, SO and Satbir Singh, UDC both of, Archeology Survey of India (ASI). At the stage of charge, court is required to consider existence of a prima facie case and a grave suspicion and not to meticulously weigh the evidence and material. All witnesses have specifically spoken about the role allegedly played by the accused. No motive to falsely implicate the accused by the complainant or any Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 6 out of 7 Pages Case No.58413/2016 previous enmity with him has been shown on record by the accused. As per material on record, complainant S.S. Rana was taken to the Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital by Ct. Rajender and MLC notes "alleged history of assault". Moreover, requisite complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C has been filed by the superior offcer i.e. Superintendent, Archeology ASI, in support of allegations. There is no doubt about the legal position that Court is not bound by the view of investigative agency. There is no second possible view obtaining from evidence on record. Thus, this Court finds no merits in the contention of petitioner. On perusal of material on record as a whole, this court finds no illegality, procedural irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by Learned Trial Court. No interference is therefore, called for therein. In the result, revision petition is dismissed.
11. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order to the Trial Court. Revision File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
on 7th September 2016 Special Judge-CBI (PC Act)-06
THC/Delhi/07.09.2016
Dalip Rana vs State Page No. 7 out of 7 Pages