Delhi District Court
Deepu Chauhan vs Poonam Prashar on 4 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010102452024
Cr Rev/372/2024
DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR
Deepu Chauhan
S/o Ramesh Chauhan
R/o RZ-P-11, Nanda Block,
Mahavir Enclave, Palam Village,
South-West, Delhi-45 ........ REVISIONIST
VERSUS
POONAM PRASHAR
D/O SH. S. S. PRASHAR
R/O 233, Mohamadpur,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi ...........RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.09.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 04.06.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 04.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order on charge dated 18.07.2023, passed by Ld. MM-01, Saket Court, New Delhi in MC No. 24 of 2011, titled as 'Poonam Parashar vs. Virender Singh', for framing of charge against the revisionist for offence u/s 448 IPC.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05 15:58:46 +0530
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 1 of 14
2. The facts in brief of the revision are that a complaint no. 24/2011 was filed by the complainant/ respondent u/s 200 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, wherein she stated that she is the tenant of co-accused Virender Singh in house no. 383, Type-1 Sector 2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi for last three years, since 01.03.2009. She claimed that on 09.04.2011 at about 4.30 PM, when she came back after giving home tuition, the accused no. 2 & 3, who were sitting near Jhuggi no. 2 started abusing her without any reason. She also alleged that on 11.04.2011, when she came back to her house, she found that accused no.1 along with accused no. 2 and 3 had forcibly broken the lock of her premises and had entered in the said house.
3. Thereafter, complainant made a complaint to police and when no action was taken by the police, the complainant filed the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. After pre- summoning evidence, vide order dated 28.05.2011, all the accused persons were summoned u/s 448 IPC and accused Ajay was summoned u/s 509 IPC also. Consequently, after pre-charge evidence, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order found sufficient material to frame charge against accused/ revisionist u/s 448 IPC.
4. The relevant observations of trial court are reproduced as under:-
"I have given my careful thought to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the complaint, the pre charge evidence as well as the documents which have been relied upon by the complainant in support of her case.
From the perusal of contents of complaint, accompanying documents as well as pre charge evidence of complainant CW2 and Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 2 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05 15:58:51 +0530 her friend CW1, the offence under Section 448 IPC r/w section 34 IPC is made out against all the accused persons for having trespassed into the property in possession of the complainant i.e. the tenanted premises and for changing locks thereof after having broken the locks of the complainant on 11.04.2011.
Secondly charge of offence u/s 509 IPC is made out against accused Ajay for having passed remark of ".....Haan ye to dhanda hi karti hai..." on 09.04.2011 to the complainant.
No concrete allegations have been levelled by the complainant CW2 in her evidence regarding the offence u/s 506 IPC and even a perusal of the complaint and annexed documents show that no specific date, time or threats have been elicited. Accordingly, all the accused persons are liable to be discharged for offence u/s 509 IPC.
As far as the arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant for invoking the charge of theft against the accused no. 1 for having given a government property on rent in an unauthorized manner to the complainant are concerned, the same are not tenable. It might be a civil wrong or a breach of contract with the government and the government servant may be liable for action for having sublet the property without authorization, however, it is incomprehensible as to how it will amount to theft u/s 379/380 IPC.
Similarly, as far as the arguments of Ld. counsel for complainant for invoking the charge against the accused no.1 for section 380 IPC for him not having returned her security amount of Rs. 30,000/- and for taking away her valuable documents and belongings are concerned, the same are not tenable as the ingredient of having 'moved' any movable property is not satisfied from the allegations levelled as it has nowhere been stated that the accused persons took away/ moved the movable properties of the complainant. Accordingly, the offence u/s 380 IPC is not attracted.
Accordingly, all the accused persons are charged for the offence u/s 448/34 IPC. Accused Ajay is charged for offence u/s 509 IPC.
Separate charge be framed against the accused persons on the NDOH. "
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2023, revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
i. that Ld. Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order as charge of criminal tress pass by a person claiming to be tenant is not maintainable in the absence of proof of tenancy. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:58:54 +0530 Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 3 of 14 ii. that Ld. Trial court failed to consider where the allegations made and appeared from the record constitute a 'civil wrong' with no 'element of criminality', the court may be justified in discharging the accused.
iii. that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that, whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.
iv. that the basic ingredient of Section 441 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code are not even fulfilled in the facts of the present case in as much as there are no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint dated 12.04.2011.
v. that Ld. Trial court erred in passing the order as the applicant has been made an accused in the present case merely on the basis of the complaints and statements of complainant i.e. PW-2 and PW-1, who is friend of complainant, without there being any iota of evidence against the petitioner.
vi. that Ld. Trial court proceeded for framing charge against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18.07.2023, without appreciating the facts on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
vii. that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the facts that the alleged landlord is allottee of the property in Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 4 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:58:57 +0530 question as the same was allotted to alleged landlord till his job.
viii. that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent has not submitted any proof of her tenancy in the property in question.
ix. that the Hon'ble Trial court has failed to consider that without proof of residence/ tenancy of the respondent in the property in question, the offence of tress pass defined u/s 441 IPC cannot be made out.
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds has argued that no offence u/s 448 IPC is made out against the revisionist. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law by passing order on charge against the revisionist, thereby framing charge u/s 448 IPC, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the records available. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the allegation of complainant of criminal tress pass are not maintainable.
On the strength of these arguments, revisionist prays for setting aside of the impugned order.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the same has been passed keeping in view the facts and materials available on record. The framing of charges against the petitioner was done after due consideration of the evidence on record, including the respondent's complaint, testimonies of witnesses and supporting documents. He submitted that the revisionist committed unlawful acts of Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 5 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05 15:59:00 +0530 trespass on 11.04.2011 when he along with the alleged landlord and others, unlawfully broke open the lock of the respondent's tenanted house and placed their own lock on the premises. He submitted that the revisionist attempt to raise the issue of subletting a government accommodation is irrelevant to the criminal charge of house trespass. Furthermore, it is submitted that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as it is devoid of merit and has been filed solely to delay the course of justice.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further argued that the revision petition is otherwise also not maintainable as same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. He submitted that the revisionist was represented by his counsel Sh. M. S. Karwasara and Mr. Sohan Lal, before the Ld. Trial Court, who were regularly appearing in the matter on his behalf and were well aware of the proceedings of the said case. He submitted that on 18.07.2023, 09.10.2023, 18.12.2023, and 21.02.2024, the revisionist was represented in the court through the said counsel. He further submitted that the revisionist was having the knowledge of the progress of the case before the Trial Court as he was represented through his counsel, who was also representing him before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Ld. counsel for the respondent to corroborate his contentions has relied upon judgment:-Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch & Ors. Vs. Anand Raj Jhawar Sole Proprietor of M/s RR Agrotech CM Appl. 8976/2025, Kadam Brothers & Developers Vs. Unimesh Ganpatrao Sathe, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 533 and Digitally Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 6 of 14 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:59:05 +0530 M. Selvi V. Anna University Staff Quarters Association 2021 SCC Online MAD 7380.
9. I have heard the rival contentions. I have gone through the reply filed by the respondent and also perused the Trial Court record.
10. The revisionist has also moved an application for condonation of delay. It is stated that the revisionist was to file the revision petition against the order dated 18.07.2023 within the prescribed period of time however, same has been filed after a delay of 322 days. It is further stated that the delay was caused as the revisionist had to go to his hometown in Alwar, Rajasthan to take care of his grandmother, who is suffering from various old age ailments and is bedridden. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the present revision was neither intentional nor deliberate but is inadvertent due to unavoidable circumstances.
11. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that there is a long delay in filing the revision petition. The only grace period which would have been available to the revisionist would be the time taken for obtaining certified copies of order dated 18.07.2023, as passed by the Ld. Magistrate.
12. A perusal of Trial court record shows that the revisionist was summoned on 28.06.2011. Thereafter, pre-
charge evidence was closed on 03.01.2023 and the matter was listed for arguments on charge. On 18.07.2023, order on charge was passed in presence of all the accused Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 7 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:59:08 +0530 persons. Now the revisionist has challenged the order dated 18.07.2023. The present revision petition was filed on 04.09.2024. As per the mandate of Article 131 of Indian Limitation Act, the present revision petition could have been filed within 90 days from the date of passing of the impugned order but the same has been filed on 04.09.2024. Thus, there is delay of 322 days in filing the revision petition. It was encumbent on the part of revisionist to show sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay of 322 days in filing of revision.
13. In case of "Deepali Sharma Vs. Fedral Bank Ltd.
RFA No. 112/2010" passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the application for condonation of delay in view of vague averments, negligence, in view of absence of sufficient cause and lackadaisical approach of the litigant in pursuing the appeal.
14. Their Lordship of Punjab & Haryana in case, "Tarawamto Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995, Punjab & Haryana 32" was pleased to hold that " the person invoking jurisdiction of court for condonation of delay is required to satisfy the court that he was unable to present his appeal in time on account of some misadventure or incapacity or circumstances beyond of his control or such sufficient cause, which bonafidely prevented him in filing the appeal, within prescribed limitation".
15. Their Lordship of Supreme Court in case of "Balwant Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh AIR 2010, S.C 3043"
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 8 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:59:12 +0530 was pleased to hold that "approaching to the court with unclean hands, itself is a ground for rejection of application U/sec. 5 of The Indian Limitation Act. It is further held that there should be sufficient cause for condonation of delay and delay should not be on account of dilatory tactics, want of bonafide, deliberate inaction or negligence and further held that liberal approach does not mean injustice to the opposite party.
16. Similarly, in case "Collector of Central Excise Madras Vs. M. Md. Bilal and Company (2000)10 S.C.C. 63", their Lordship of Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the application for condonation of delay in view of absence of satisfactory or cogent explanation for delay.
17. Their Lordship of High Court of Delhi in case "Shiv Kumari Vs. Choudhary Prem Singh and Ors. 165(2009) DLT 307" was also pleased to dismiss the application for condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause for delay.
18. Thus, from the law enumerated in the above judgments, it is crystal clear that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to show some sufficient cause, which bonafidely prevented to the revisionist to file the present revision within time. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist could not file the revision petition within the limitation period as he has to go to his native place to take care of his grand mother. Trial court record reveals that the revisionist after passing of order on charge on 18.07.2023, regularly appeared either in person Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 9 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05 15:59:16 +0530 or through his counsel on each and every date i.e. 28.08.2023, 09.10.2023, 01.11.2023, 18.12.2023, 15.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 20.03.2024, 22.05.2024 and 07.08.2024, before filing the revision petition on 04.09.2024. Meaning thereby the revisionist was aware about the order on charge from the date when the same was passed. The reason given by Ld. Counsel does not inspire any confidence as revisionist was well represented by a counsel before Ld. Trial court and nothing stopped him from engaging the same counsel or any other counsel for filing the revision petition. Revisionist did not challenge the order within the prescribed period of 90 days despite having knowledge and he filed the revision petition assailing the impugned order on 04.09.2024, after a long delay of 322 days, when the matter has already proceeded for complainant evidence. The Ld counsel for the revisionist could not explain why did he not file the revision within the limitation period. This petition has been filed much beyond the period of limitation and said grounds are not sufficient to condone the delay. I accordingly find that the present revision petition is not maintainable having been filed beyond the period of limitation.
19. Even on merit, the law on the question of consideration of charge is well settled. If the criminal court, on consideration of the material submitted with the charge sheet finds that a grave suspicion exists about the involvement of the accused in the crime alleged, it is expected to frame the charge and put the accused on trial.
Digitally signedCr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 10 of 14 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:59:19 +0530 At such initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not required to be meticulously judged, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused.
20. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. XXXXX Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. XXXXX If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it s so at the initial stage of making an order under S. 227 or S. 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under S. 228 and not under S. 227."
21. Further, in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Others, [(2008) SCC 239], Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is not to examine and access in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05 15:59:22 +0530 Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 11 of 14 sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
22. Similar are the observations in "State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court"; "Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 Crl. L.J.154, Hon'ble Supreme Court" & " State of M.P Vs. S. B Johari 2000 Crl. L. J. 944 (SC)".
23. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
24. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has contended that there are no allegations against the revisionist in complaint dated 12.04.2011. However, I do not find any force in such contention as in the said complaint, the complainant has alleged that for last three years she lives in House no. 383, Type-1 Sector 2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. She in her statement as CW-2 has specifically stated that on 11.04.2011, her landlord Virender Singh along with accused Ajay Kumar Khanna and the revisionist broke open the lock of door of her house. Ld. counsel has also contended that there are several contradictions in the statement of CW-1 and CW-2 which Ld. Trial Court did not considered at the time of framing of charge. The Trial Court also not verified as to the landlord, tenant relationship between the parties.
25. It is a settled law that at the stage of consideration on charge, there is no requirement of evaluating the evidence or final probability of case projected by Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 12 of 14 2025.06.05 15:59:26 +0530 complainant. The complainant has specifically deposed about the incident in her pre-charge evidence. Hence, at this stage, it is sufficient if the order shows that trial court has applied its mind to the facts of case and material on record. Neither the defence of accused nor the authenticity of claim of prosecution is required to be decided at the stage of the charge. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and averments made in revision touch the probable value of claim made by both the sides which cannot be done at the stage of charge.
26. The grounds taken by the revisionist call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so, even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the revisionist, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that in view of the material available on record including statement of complainant, a grave suspicion arises against revisionist for having committed offence under section 448 IPC and therefore, there is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order and same does not call for any interference by this Court.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.06.05
15:59:29
+0530
Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 13 of 14
27. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition being filed beyond the period of limitation and also being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
28. TCR be sent back to court concerned along with copy of present judgment.
29. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.06.05 15:59:33 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 04th DAY OF JUNE, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 14 signed pages) Cr Rev/372/2024 DEEPU CHAUHAN Vs. POONAM PRASHAR Page No. 14 of 14