Delhi District Court
Azad Singh vs The State on 10 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT ,NORTH WEST DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Criminal Revision No. 132/2019
DLNW010063622019
Presented on : 05-07-2019
Registered on : 06-07-2019
Decided on : 10-11-2022
Duration : 3 years, 4 months, 5 days
Azad Singh
S/o Sh. Mir Singh,
R/o Village Mundka,
Delhi.
....Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
....Respondent
C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 1
&
C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr
(2) Criminal Revision No. 135/2019
DLNW010065362019
Presented on : 09-07-2019
Registered on : 10-07-2019
Decided on : 10-11-2022
Duration : 3 years, 4 months, 1 days
Manoj Kumar Shokeen
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o A-93, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
....Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Ct. Pawan Kumar
No. 5398/DHG
PS Khanjawala
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 10-11-2022)
1. By way of present judgment, I shall dispose criminal revisions no. 132/2019 & 135/2019.
2. By these criminal revisions, revisionists/petitioners impugn C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 2 & C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr the orders of ld. MM-02, North-West, Rohini dated 06.12.2018 and 16.05.2019 whereby ld. Trial Court has passed order on charge and framed the charge against the revisionists for the offence punishable under Sections 353/186/332/506/34 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the complaint of one Ct. Pawan Kumar (respondent no. 2), No. 5398/DHG, PS Khanjhawala, Delhi. On 19.11.2008 at about 12:00 complainant/respondent no. 2 alongwith Addl. SHO, ASI Satyavir Singh, Ct. Kanwar Singh, HC Vijay Kumar, L/Ct. Sunita, L/Ct. Rajbala, L/Ct. Balwanti were reached at Khanjhawla Chowk where petitioner Manoj Shokeen campaigning for BJP and many vehicles with stickers of BJP party symbol were parked on the road. On the direction of Addl. SHO, respondent no. 2 clicked photographs of the said vhicles and while he was noting down the numbers of said vehicles, both the petitioners Manoj Shokeen and Master Azad Singh approached the complainant/respondent no. 2 and petitioner Azad Singh misbehaved with the complainant/respondent no. 2 and tried to snatch the papers from respondent no. 2. Both the petitioners misbehaved with other staff also. Thereafter, on the complaint of respondent no. 2, FIR No. 179/2008 dated 19.11.2008 was registered, investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the revisionists/petitioners.
4. The grounds taken for filing the present criminal revisions are that ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 3 & C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr 06.12.2018 on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without there being any concrete ground to assume and presume any such fact. Investigating agency failed to furnish MLC of the victims for corroborating the fact that hurt was caused to any of the victims.
5. It is contended that complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. filed alongwith the charge sheet is not proper as the same does not bear any date and same is filed by the investigating agency to fill up the lacuna. Therefore, the charge under Section 186 IPC against the petitioners is not sustainable. It is further contended that complainant/respondent no. 2 has clearly alleged that it was revisionist/petitioner Master Azad Singh who tried to snatch the papers and pushed the complainant/respondent no. 2 and therefore, charge for the offence punishable under Section 353/332 is not sustainable against the revisionist/petitioner Manoj Kumar Shokeen.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. The main ground on which revisions are filed is that it is mandatory for the Court to take cognizance on complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for framing charge under Section 186 IPC and at the time of taking cognizance ld. MM did not take cognizance of sanction/complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
8. Ld. Counsel for petitioner Manoj Kumar Shokeen has also relied upon the following judgments/case laws:-
C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 4 & C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr
1. Sunil Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Rev. P. No. 20/2011
2. Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1996 SC 1995
3. Pankaj Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi, Manu/SC/1601/2001.
9. TCR reveals that on 22.07.2016 when the matter was taken up for arguments on charge before ld. MM an issue was raised with respect to filing of complaint under Section 195 cr.P.C. as the charge sheet did not contain mentioning of this complaint in the list of documents filed alongwith charge sheet. Yet an undated complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was available on record. Therefore, notice was issued to IO to clarify with respect to date of filing of this complaint as to whether the same was filed with the charge sheet or filed on subsequent date. However, no such clarification was received on record and on 06.12.2018 ld. MM passed the impugned order framing charge against accused persons for offence under Section 353/186/332/506/34 IPC.
10. It was observed by ld. MM that, "I have carefully gone through the case file, the sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed by SHO PS khanjhawla in the capacity as superior officer for complainant Ct. Pawan Kumar. The same does not bear any date. However, it is mentioned in the said sanction that the "charge sheet has been prepared after completion of investigation, which is to be filed". From the same it is amply clear that the said sanction was brought on record before filing of the charge sheet. Hence, no C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 5 & C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr further inquiry is deemed necessary on this aspect.
Now coming to arguments that the ld. Predecessor of the Court had not specifically mentioned about the sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. in the order while taking cognizance. It would be sufficient to say that the cognizance has already been taken in this case. The order dated 21.08.2010 clearly mentions that the documents filed with the charge sheet were taken into consideration while taking cognizance. Since, it has earlier been concluded by this Court that complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C was filed with the charge sheet, hence, the same would have been taken into consideration by the ld. Predecessor of this Court.
It is settled law that the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate does not have power to review it's own order (Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal & Ors. (2004) 7SCC 338)."
11. The judgments/case laws relied upon by ld. Counsel has dealt with the cases in which complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was missing. But in the instant case, complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is already on record.
12. On the first date i.e. 22.07.2016 when ld. MM raised query with respect to date of filing of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., ld. MM did not take into the account the order dated 21.08.2010 whereby the cognizance was taken for offence under Section 186/332/353/506/34 IPC. Had there been any such deficiency of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. ld. MM would not have mentioned Section 186 in the order sheet. This confusion C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 6 & C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr was created because the mention of complaint under Section 195 Cr.p.C. in the list of documents of the charge sheet was missing.
13. However, it is not necessary to make the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. a part of charge sheet because under Section 195 Cr.P.C. complaint is directly addressed to Court. The IO may have filed the same with the charge sheet without making it a part of charge sheet and there is no illegality in filing in the complaint in that manner. Therefore, on 06.12.2018 ld. MM was right in dismissing the contention of defence counsel that the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was filed subsequent to filing of charge sheet. This room for doubt was created because of negligence of SHO when he did not mention the date in the complaint. On this account, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. MM.
14. So far as contention as to no offence is made out against accused persons there are statement of witnesses and both the accused persons are named in the complaint itself that they misbehaved with the complainant Ct. Pawan and started manhandling with him and also tried to snatch the paper in which he was noting the registration number of vehicles. Ct. Pawan was noting down the number of the vehicles on the instructions of SHO, therefore, he was discharging his official duties in which petitioners had obstructed, caused simple hurt to Ct. Pawan when they pushed him and for that purpose they used criminal force and assaulted Ct. Pawan to deter him from discharging his functions.
C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 7 & C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr Similar version is given by Ct. Kanwar Singh Ct. Pawan, Lady Ct. Balwani and Lady Ct. Sunita, who were present at the spot, therefore, Section 34 IPC has been added. Hence, petitioner Manoj Kumar Shokeen cannot say that he was party to some offence and not to some. However, there is no mention of any threat or intimidation passed by accused persons in the complainant of Ct. Pawan or statement of witnesses.
ORDER The order of Ld. MM, to the extent of framing charge under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC is perfectly correct. However, there is no case against the accused persons to frame charge under Section 506 IPC as there is no allegation of any intimidation passed by petitioners. Ld. Trial Court is directed to amend the charge accordingly.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith TCR.
Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2022.11.10
13:37:03 +0530
Date : 10-11-2022 (Sh. Vikram)
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
NORTH WEST DELHI
Dictated on : 10.11.2022
Transcribed on : 10.11.2022
checked on : 10.11.2022 Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Signed on : 10.11.2022
VIKRAM Date:
2022.11.10
13:37:11 +0530
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/10.11.2022
C.R. No. 132/2019 Azad Singh Vs. The State Page no. 8
&
C.R. No. 135/2019 Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. The State & Anr