Delhi District Court
Priya Sehgal vs The State on 22 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-008074-2023
CR No. 241/2023
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through Public Prosecutor.
.....Revisionist
Vs
1. RAJU KUMAR @ RAJEEV
S/o Sh. Arjun Singh,
R/o: H. No.A-3/157, 1st Floor, Sector-17, Rohini,
Delhi.
2. TAPAN CHATARJI
S/o Sh. Dalip Chatarji
R/o: H. No.A-3/157, 1st Floor, Sector-17, Rohini,
Delhi.
.....Respondent
AND
CNR No. DLNT01-009990-2023
CR No. 290/2023
PRIYA SEHGAL
W/o Sh. Yogesh Sehgal
R/o A-3/158, 03rd Floor, Sector-17, Rohini,
Delhi-110089.
.....Revisionist
Vs
1. THE STATE
Govt of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, I. P. Estate, New Delhi.
State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji Page No.1 of 10
CR No. 241/2023 &
Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors.
CR No.290/2023 Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.23
16:32:56
+0530
2. MONIKA
W/o Sh. Kapil
R/o: H. No.A-3/160, 03rd Floor, Sector-17, Rohini,
Delhi.
3. JAYA CHATARJI
C/o Sh. Dalip Chatarji
4. RAJU KUMAR @ RAJEEV
S/o Sh. Arjun Singh
5. RADHIKA CHATARJI
W/o Sh. Raju Kumar @ Rajeev
6. TAPA CHATARJI
C/o Sh. Dalip Chatarji
All R/o: A-3/157, 1st Floor, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi-110089.
.....Respondents
Date of institution of revision : 28.07.2023
Date on which judgment pronounced : 22.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall decide two separate revision petitions filed by State (Through Public Prosecutor) and Complainant Ms. Priya Sehgal against the above-named respondents.
SUSHIL KUMAR State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji Digitally signed by Page No.2 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & SUSHIL KUMAR Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. Date: 2025.05.23 16:33:04 +0530 CR No.290/2023
2. These two separate revision petitions have filed by the revisionists under section 397 Cr.PC. for setting-aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the Court of Ld. MM/Mahila Court-01, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in FIR bearing No.372/2019 PS K N Katju Marg pertaining Cr. Case. No.999/2020, titled as ' State Vs Jaya Chaterji & Ors.' whereby the Ld.Trial Court has discharged accused persons namely Rajiv and Tapan for the offence punishable under section 354-B IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revisionist has moved the present revision petition on the following grounds :
(i) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is sufficient evidence on record against the accused persons who were discharged for the offence punishable under section 354-
B/34 IPC
(ii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement of the complainant and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr. PC which prima facie establishes the case against accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji under section 354-B/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji SUSHIL KUMAR Page No.3 of 10 KUMAR Date:
CR No. 241/2023 & 2025.05.23 16:33:09 Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. +0530 CR No.290/2023
(iii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant has specifically made allegations of pulling and tearing of cloths by the accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji at the time of incident.
(iv) That the Ld. Trial has failed to appreciate the fact that the husband of complainant namely Yogesh Sehgal (eye-witness of the incident) in his statement under section 161 Cr. PC has specifically made allegations of pulling and tearing of clothes of the complainant by the accused persons Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji at the time of incident.
(v) That the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is against the allegations mentioned in the complaint and also not in consonance with law, thus is required to be set-aside.
(vi) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of charge, it is only required to see as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the persons on the basis of complainant, the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. PC and other evidence collected by IO during the investigation. That Court Digitally signed by SUSHIL State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji SUSHIL KUMAR Page No.4 of 10 KUMAR Date:
CR No. 241/2023 & 2025.05.23 16:33:13 Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. +0530 CR No.290/2023
has further failed to appreciate that at this stage meticulous evaluation of the evidence is not required.
(vii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of charge it is not obligatory to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether whether the facts, if proved would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. 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 of his conviction. Strong suspicion at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event, it is not open to say there there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
viii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in the present case there is sufficient evidence on the file to take prima facie view that a case is made out against the accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji under section 354-B/34 IPC
ix) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the well settled principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, Digitally signed by State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji SUSHIL Page No.5 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. 2025.05.23 16:33:17 CR No.290/2023 +0530 the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative evidence to conclude whether the material produced is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true as that stage.
x) That order of Ld. Trial Court is not bases on the facts of the case but is based on surmises and conjectures.
xi) That the impugned order has caused miscarriage and failure of justice and has caused irreparable loss and injury to the interest of the state.
4. It is argued by Ld. Addl PP for state/ Revisionist that revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set-aside.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Respondents has opposed the contentions made on behalf of revisionists and submits that Ld. Trial Court has rightly discharged respondents namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji for the offence punishable under section 354-B IPC as no ground for prima facie making accused persons liable for the afore-said offence is available on record. Ld. Counsel for Respondents has vehemently opposed Digitally signed by SUSHIL State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji SUSHIL KUMAR Page No.6 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & KUMAR Date:
2025.05.23 Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. 16:33:22 CR No.290/2023 +0530 the present revision petition and prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be dismissed.
6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of ld. Counsel for the revisionist/complainant, Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for both respondents. This Court has also perused the record.
7. In the present case, Trial Court Record has been summoned and the same has been carefully perused. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that an FIR bearing no.372/2019 was registered U/s 323/354/354B/451/506/34 IPC at PS KNK Marg and after completion of investigation charge-sheet for the offences punishable U/s U/s 323/341/506/354/354B/34 IPC was filed against accused persons namely Jaya Chatarji, Monika Chatarji, Raju Kumar @ Rajeev, Radhika Chatarji and Tapan Chatarji (name mentioned in column no.12 of the charge-sheet). Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that after taking cognizance of the alleged offences, all accused persons were summoned by Ld. Trial Court. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that after hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dated SUSHIL KUMAR State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji Page No.7 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. Date: 2025.05.23 16:33:26 +0530 CR No.290/2023 25.01.2023 whereby charges for the offences punishable under section 451/323/506/34 IPC were framed against accused persons namely Jaya Chatarji, Monika Chatarji, Raju Kumar @ Rajeev, Radhika Chatarji and Tapan Chatarji and separate charge for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji only. Vide impugned order on charge dated 25.01.2023, Ld. Trial Court discharged accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji for the offence punishable under section 354B IPC by giving reason that the complainant has not alleged that her clothes were torned deliberately by the above-named accused persons.
8. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of complainant Ms. Priya Sehgal. Perusal of the said complaint shows that she has specifically stated in her complaint that 'RAJEEV AUR RADHIKA KE BHAI NE MERI CHHATI PER LAAT GHUSE MARE, MAAR PEET MAIN MERE KAPDE BHI FATE GALE SE (CHHATI SE)". Further, in her statement under section 164 Cr. PC recorded by Ld. MM, she repeatedly leveled such allegations in similar words. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that even in the statement under section SUSHIL State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji KUMAR Page No.8 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & Digitally signed by Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. SUSHIL KUMAR CR No.290/2023 Date: 2025.05.23 16:33:31 +0530 161 Cr.PC of Sh. Yogesh Sehgal (Husband of Complainant and eye-witness of the alleged incident), specific allegations of pulling and tearing of clothes of complainant by accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji have been made.
9. It is well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of charge, Court has to see as to whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons on the basis of complaint, statements recorded under section 161 Cr. PC and other evidences collected by IO during the investigation. Further, at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous evaluation of evidences are not required. In the present case from perusal of the Trial Court Record, this Court is of considered view that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie form an opinion that respondents / accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji have committed the offences punishable under section 354B IPC. It is well settled principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, Court is not accepted to go deep into the probative value of material on record and the Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the material produce is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji KUMAR Date:
2025.05.23 Page No.9 of 10CR No. 241/2023 & 16:33:35 +0530 Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors. CR No.290/2023
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that Ld. Trial Court has committed an error while discharging respondent/accused namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji for the offence punishable U/s 354B IPC. Therefore, impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court is modified to the extent that prima facie case for offence punishable under section 354B IPC is made out against respondent / accused persons namely Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji. Ld. Trial Court is directed to frame additional charge for offence punishable under section 354B IPC against respondent/accused persons Raju Kumar @ Rajeev and Tapan Chatarji and shall proceed further, in accordance with law. The present revision petitions stands disposed off as allowed.
11. A copy of this order be given to Revisionist and be also sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the TCR immediately.
12. Revision files be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. SUSHIL by SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.23 16:33:41 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Sushil Kumar) nd On 22 of May, 2025. Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Rohini Courts: Delhi.
22.05.2025.
State Vs Raju Kumar @ Rajeev & Tapan Chatarji Page No.10 of 10 CR No. 241/2023 & Priya Sehgal Vs The State & Ors.
CR No.290/2023