Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

(Pc Act) (Cbi) South District: Saket ... vs The State on 21 January, 2016

    IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
      (PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
                            NEW DELHI


Criminal Revision Number: 53/2015
Unique ID No. 02406R0323322015


1 Sh. Attar Singh,
Son of late Sh. Lakhi Ram,
Resident of H. No. 519,
Devli Village, Delhi.

2 Sh. Ishwar Singh,
Son of late Sh. Lakhi Ram,
Resident of H. No. 519,
Devli Village, Delhi.

3 Sh. Raj Singh,
Son of late Sh. Lakhi Ram,
Resident of H. No. 519,
Devli Village, Delhi.

4 Sh. Krishan Singh,
Son of late Sh. Lakhi Ram,
Resident of H. No. 203,
Devli Village, Delhi.                          ...........................Revisionists



                                         versus
The State                                      ...........................Respondent



               Date of institution of Revision                  :       06.10.2015
               Date of Allocation                               :       07.10.2015
               Date of conclusion of arguments                  :       18.01.2016
               Date of Judgment                                 :       21.01.2016




Attar Singh & Ors Vs State Criminal Revision No.53/2015                       Page 1 of 7
        Particulars related to impugned order

       FIR No.                                            : 226/2013
       PS                                                 : Neb Sarai
       Date of impugned order                             : 28.07.2015
       Name of learned Trial Court                        : Sh. Ankit Singla,
                                                            MM-03, South, Saket.


Memo of Appearance

Sh. Anuj Kumar Garg, counsel for all Revisionists.
Sh. R.S. Negi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent.



JUDGMENT

1 The present is a judicial verdict on the revision petition filed u/s 397 & 399 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order, dated 28.07.2015, passed by learned trial court.

2 Brief facts of the case are that complainant Surjeet Singh Kakar had lodged the complaint dated 01.06.2013 with the police of PS Neb Sarai. It is alleged in the complaint that Surjeet Singh Kakar was the owner of plot No. N-32/16, N-Block, Sainik Farms, New Delhi being bought in November, 2012 from one Sh. Virender Gupta. It has been further alleged that complainant had visited the said plot in the after noon on 01.06.2013 and he found the rear wall demolished and he asked the group of people standing thereby as to who had done it. Those persons disclosed the names of accused Attar Singh, Raj Singh, Ishwar Singh and Krishan Singh. Those persons told him to leave the said plot as he has nothing to do with it. Complainant told them that he has valid documents to prove his ownership then they replied to Surjeet Singh (complainant) that he i.e. Surjeet Singh had done fraud and he has to left the Attar Singh & Ors Vs State Criminal Revision No.53/2015 Page 2 of 7 same. It is alleged that complainant has concealed and not disclosed about the fact of lodging the earlier complaint dated 24.05.2013 against the children of accused persons which was later on converted into FIR No. 207/2013 PS Neb Sarai when he found the old boundary wall broken and two boys, namely, Sanjay and Sushil standing thereby and they were putting the iron gate at the entrance. It has been alleged that IO and investigating agency has not investigated the matter properly. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.

3 On the basis of arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, learned trial court has framed charge against all the accused/revisionists vide order, dated 28.07.2015. Having aggrieved by the said impugned order of the learned trial court, all the revisionists have filed the present revision petition.

4 I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record file and have given my thoughtful consideration.

5 The charge framed by the learned trial court is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"That on 01.06.2013 at about unkown time at N-32/16 Sanik Farm, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Neb Sarai, you all in furtherance of your common intention demolished the wall of the abovesaid plot and also broke open the locks of the store room in the above said house belonging to the complainant namely Surjeet Singh Kakkar Attar Singh & Ors Vs State Criminal Revision No.53/2015 Page 3 of 7 committed house trespassed upon the property belonging to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 453/34 IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly on the abovesaid date, time and place, you all in furtherance of your common intention you all removed dishonestly the four chairs, one table, one TV which were lying in store room without the consent of complainant and thereby you all committed an offence punishable u/s. 380/34 IPC and withing my cognizance."

6 It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the allegations in the charge sheet are nothing but only false, frivolous and concocted story without any substance. It has been contended that the present FIR and charge sheet have been filed with malafide intention to facilitate the complainant without any proper and complete investigation. It has further been contended that the impugned order of framing of charge is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been prayed that the impugned order, dated 28.07.2015 passed by the learned trial court may be set aside.

7 On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Additional PP for the State that the impugned order, dated 28.07.2015, has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court. It has further been contended that learned Trial Court has not committed any error by framing the charge against the revisionists. It has been argued that the present revision petition be dismissed.

8 In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366(1), it has been held as under :-

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges, under section 227 of the Code, has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceedings with the trial.

(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of the Judge, which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mount-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

9 The principles enumerated in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366(1),are equally applicable to the cases triable by the court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate has to see if there is, prima facie, sufficient material for framing charge against the accused. If it is so, the learned trial court is fully justified in framing the charge against the accused persons.

10 Thus in view of the above observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if there is, Prima facie, sufficient material to frame the charge against the accused, then, charge can be framed against him. If, however, if there is not, Prima Facie, sufficient material to incriminate the accused with the allegations, which he is alleged to have committed, the accused should be discharged.

11 In the present matter, I have gone through the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant as well as the annexed documents. There is mention of all the four accused persons regarding the offences punishable u/s 453/34 IPC as well as u/s 380/34 IPC. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that there was, prima facie, sufficient material before the learned trial court to frame the charge against the accused persons.

12 In view of these facts, I find no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court. The impugned order, dated 28.07.2015, of learned trial court is hereby upheld.

13 Revision petition stands disposed of.

14 A copy of this judgment be sent to Learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.

15 File related to revision petition be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open court                     (RAMESH KUMAR)
on this 21st day of January 2016            Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
                                          South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi




Attar Singh & Ors Vs State Criminal Revision No.53/2015              Page 7 of 7