Delhi District Court
Jyoti vs State on 9 April, 2021
In the Court of Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam:
Additional Sessions Judge -03 (East)
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
Criminal Revision No. 15/2021
Jyoti
W/o Shri Gagan Malhotra
R/o H. No. 1062/10, Model Town,
Rohtak, Haryana.
........ Revisionist
Vs.
State
.....Respondent
Arising out of
Crl Case No. 715/2017
Case FIR No. 626/2015
Titled as State Vs. Cancellation
Under Sec. 380/454 IPC
PS Mandawali
Date of Institution : 03.02.2021
Order Reserved on : 07.04.2021
Date of Order : 09.04.2021
ORDER:
1. Vide the present criminal revision petition, the sole revisionist namely Jyoti, invoking the provisions of Sec. 397/401 Crl. Revision No. 15/2021 Jyoti Vs. State page no. 1 of 5 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as CrPC), challenged the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned MM (East) whereby charge under Sec. 182/211 IPC framed against the revisionist.
2. Aggrieved of said impugned order dated 16.12.2020, present revisionist preferred the present criminal revision petition.
3. Necessary filtered facts for disposal of the present criminal revision are that the marriage of the revisionist got solemnised with one Gagan Malhotra in the month of December, 2014 and since the very beginning of the marriage, some matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and parties involved in litigations. It is also case that on finding that jewellary of the revisionist stolen, an FIR has been lodged and later on, on an application/statement of the revisionist, a kallandera was prepared and hence, present criminal revision has been filed against the order of charge against the revisionist vide impugned order dated 16.12.2020 and aggrieved of the said impugned order, present revisionist filed present criminal revision petition and TCR was summoned.
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist argued that impugned order is based of surmises and conjectures without going through the Crl. Revision No. 15/2021 Jyoti Vs. State page no. 2 of 5 entire material and facts of the record. It is also submitted that impugned order is against the principle of natural justice and same is biased one causing material prejudice and grave injustice to the revisionist. One of the contentions of the ld. counsel is that ld. trial court failed to appreciate the fact that jewellary belongs to the revisionist as given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage. Moreover, it is also pointed out that impugned order is not speaking one and hence is unfair, unjustified, unreasonable, misconceived, totally illegal and against the legal propositions of law. It is prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 16.12.2020.
5. It is worthwhile to mention here that the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 is only in one sentence qua framing of charge as
-"xxx Submissions heard. Prima facie a case is made out against the accused. Charge has been framedxxx"
6. Apart from that it is clear that separate kallandera has also been pending in the said FIR. From time to time, it has been advised by various courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court that justice should not only be delivered but it is to be seen that it has been delivered. Order qua framing of charge(s) should be speaking one and not merely passing in one sentence. This case has peculiar Crl. Revision No. 15/2021 Jyoti Vs. State page no. 3 of 5 circumstances and court has to evaluate the material on record in every aspect even for framing of charge or making out case prima facie. Courts cannot be the post office of the prosecution and pass order judiciously.
7. It seems that court has passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 in haste manner without going through he complete record and as such, this court is of the view that same needs interference.
8. With these observations, present criminal revision is hereby disposed of and impugned order dated 16.12.2020 is hereby set aside with the directions that court concerned should pass speaking order after considering each material on record to make out prima facie case against the revisionist. As such, present matter is remand back to the court concerned with above mentioned directions.
9. Parties are directed to appear before ld. trial court concerned on 26.04.2021.
10. As such, present criminal revision petitioin stands disposed of being remand back.
11. Copy of this order be placed in TCR and be sent back to the court concerned.
Crl. Revision No. 15/2021 Jyoti Vs. State page no. 4 of 5
12. File of criminal revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 09th day of April, 2021.
(Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (East):
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi Crl. Revision No. 15/2021 Jyoti Vs. State page no. 5 of 5