Delhi District Court
Ms. Nilima Rishbud vs State on 17 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTHEAST,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
IN RE:
CR No. 114/17 ID No. DLSE010017312017
1. Ms. Nilima Rishbud
W/o Shri Vijay Rishbud
R/o Flat No. K004, Exotica Fresco,
Sector 137, Noida - 201301
U.P.
2. Shri Sandeep Sancheti
S/o Shri K. K. Sancheti
H. No. C214, Ashiana Greenwood
Jagatpura, Jaipur
Rajasthan - 302017
3. Shri N. K. Sharma S/o Late Shri D. C. Sharma
R/o 925, Swami Vivekanand Block,
Housing Board Colony Saraswati Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 .... Revisionists
Versus
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.03.2017
Date of arguments : 09.11.2017
Date of Judgment
:
17.11.2017
CR No. 114/2017 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the criminal revision petition u/s 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") dated 02.01.2017 whereby the charges have been framed against the revisionists for the offences u/s 336 and 176 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
2. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the State. Trial court record was summoned and arguments were heard.
3. The revisionists have been charged for the offences u/s 336 and 176 IPC read with section 34 IPC, primarily on the basis of the allegations that they have not complied with various provisions of UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institution, 2009 and secondly they failed to inform about the incident of ragging to the appropriate authority within the stipulated time.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionists had argued that learned ACMM who had passed the order has not given any reasons for putting revisionists to trial for these offences. He submitted that in the order dated 02.01.2017, learned ACMM has mentioned in the very first line of the order "Vide separate order of even date order of charge passed". He submitted that no such order has been passed by learned ACMM and just one order was passed on 02.01.2017 for framing of charges against the revisionist on the basis of the material placed on the record.
CR No. 114/2017 2 of 6
5. To confirm whether any separate order was passed on charge or not, the report was called from the Ahlmad of the concerned court of learned ACMM. The report was received from Santosh Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of learned ACMM, SouthEast. As per this report, on 02.01.2017, only charge was framed against the accused persons which is attached with the judicial file and no separate order on charge was passed on the said date. As per this report, the mentioning of a "separate order on charge" may be inadvertently mentioned by the Stenographer while copying and pasting the formate of the order.
6. In fact there is no order of charge found in the judicial file. In view of the report of the Ahlmad, an inference can be drawn that infact no separate order for framing of charge has been passed by learned ACMM.
7. The question now is whether learned ACMM had applied the mind to record and the documents submitted along with the chargesheet while observing that prima facie offence u/s 336/176 IPC read with section 34 IPC is made out against the accused persons?
8. The learned counsel for the revisionists had submitted that considering the averment filed along with the chargehseet itself, the court could have stopped the proceedings further as infact there was no violation of the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institution, 2009 and infact the intimation of the alleged incident of ragging was immediately conveyed to the authorities. He CR No. 114/2017 3 of 6 submitted that the UGC Regulations have been uploaded on the Notice Board of the School of Planning and Architecture as well as on its website. He submitted that an Anti Ragging Committee was already formed and the names and telephone numbers of the members of the committee were also pasted on the Notice Board. He also submitted that a prompt action was taken on the complaint dated 12.09.2012 and the police was informed immediately at the earliest regarding the incident of ragging. He submitted that there was infact the material available on the record itself which should have been considered by the learned ACMM and the proceedings should have been dropped u/s 258 Cr.P.C.
9. The learned Additional PP for the State on the other hand has argued that even if there is no detailed order on framing of charge, the learned ACMM had considered the material placed on record to form a prima facie view for commission of the offence u/s 336/176 IPC.
10. The position of law is very clear on this issue whether the court is required to pass a detailed order while framing of charge against an accused and admittedly there is settled position that no such detailed order is required by framing a charge, the court has to be satisfied on the basis of the record if prima facie case is being made out against the arrayed accused. However, this does not absolve the court of its responsibility to mention in the order at least the circumstances and the material on record on the basis of which the court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made CR No. 114/2017 4 of 6 out. Reasoning is the hallmark of a judicial order. The material on record therefore must be considered by the court and it must reflect from the order that the material has been considered in the right earnest. In the present case, the documents which were filed along with the chargesheet have not been taken into account by the learned ACMM while passing the order. The submissions made by the counsel for the accused found no reflection in the impugned order dated 02.01.2017. It was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to at least discuss the points raised by the accused persons at the time of making submissions on the point of charge. Thus, the order dated 02.01.2017 is a non speaking order without assigning rationale and the reasons behind the satisfaction that prima facie case is made out u/s 336/176 IPC.
11. Even the charge framed on 02.01.2017 is not as per the law. The offences u/s 336 and 176 IPC are "summon triable" offences, therefore instead of framing a charge, a notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. should have been framed. The learned ACMM has not mentioned why procedure of trial in warrant case was adopted. But it is only an irregularity which does not cause any prejudice to the revisionists. The purpose of mentioning this fact was only to point out that while considering material in the chargesheet to put an accused for trial, the magisterial court should be conscious of the procedure which is to be followed in the case. The trial in the case should have been proceeded under Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. i.e. trial of summon CR No. 114/2017 5 of 6 cases and not under Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. i.e. trial of warrant cases.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.01.2017 is hereby set aside and the learned ACMM is directed to hear the submissions on the point of service of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., in the light of the documents filed along with the chargesheet and pass a speaking order u/s 251 Cr.P.C. or u/s 258 Cr.P.C. as the case may be.
13. With these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of. A true copy of the order along with trial court record be sent to the trial court concerned.
14. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
court today i.e. 17.11.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 114/2017 6 of 6