Delhi District Court
Sh. Vijay Kumar Midha vs The State on 16 December, 2013
THE COURT OF SH. VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Unique Identification No. 02402C0108052013
Sh. Vijay Kumar Midha
S/o Sh. Nand Lal Midha
R/o 2/38, Yudhisthar Gali,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi -110032.
.....Revisionist/accused
Versus
The State
..... Respondent
C.R.No. 16/2013
U/s 397/399 Cr.PC FIR No. 123/2011 PS : Farsh Bazar Date of institution : 09.04.2013 Date of Arguments : 05.12.2013 Date of Order : 16.12.2013 Revision Petition under section 397/399 Cr.P.C. against the impugned charge order dated 09.01.2013 in the FIR No.123/2011 U/s 323/324/34 IPC PS Farsh Bazar vide which Ld. Trial Court has framed the charge against the revisionist Order
1. Feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 09.01.2013 vide Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 1 of 9 which the court of Sh. Muneesh Garg, Ld. MM, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi ordered to frame charge u/s 323/324/34 IPC against the revisionist and two other accused persons, revisional jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by the revisionist.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts for disposal of this revision are that on complaint of one Sh. Devender Kumar, an FIR No.123 dated 12.5.2011 PS Farsh Bazar was registered against the revisionist and two others. The complainant has alleged that he has been working with M/s Muthoot Finance Co. Ltd., Vishwas Nagar, Delhi, as office boy since 12th February 2011 and his Appointment Letter was received in the office on 28.4.2011 and he has been subject to harassment at the hands of revisionist Vijay Kumar Midha and two other accused namely Ms. Aruna and Ms. Upasana and they used to harass and abuse him and he has sent an Application to the Head Office but no action could be taken and on 28.4.2011 when his letter of appointment was received, these accused persons have terminated his services, and on 28.4.2011 he went to the office as usual and these accused persons did not give him the said Letter of Appointment and on the date of incident i.e. 12.5.2011 when he went to the office to receive his letter, he requested them to issue him the transfer letter if they do not allow him to work in the office and thereafter the accused persons thrashed him and he was hit on his head by a glass and he made a call at telephone no.100. In his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 2 of 9 complainant further alleged that accused/revisionist and another accused Ms. Aruna have slapped him whereas third accused Ms. Upasana hit him on his head by a glass.
3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused Vijay Kumar Midha that no case is made out against the revisionist/accused u/s 324 Cr.P.C. and on the face of the allegations, the revisionist can be charged only for the offence u/s 323 Cr.P.C. He has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 2010 Criminal Law Journal 1427 (SC) wherein it was held that the court is empowered to discharge the accused if two findings are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion and at this stage, the court is not to see whether trial will end in conviction or acquittal. On the other hand, Ld. Chief Prosecutor has argued that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. Trial court.
4. U/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if upon considering the police report and documents sent with it u/s 173 Cr.PC and making such examination, if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. However u/s 240 Cr.P.C., if, upon such consideration, examination if any and hearing, the Magistrate is Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 3 of 9 of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. U/s 221 (1) Cr.P.C., if a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.
5. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Versus Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568 that at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Jailalitha, Volume V, 2000 SLT 113 that this is not the stage of weighing the pros and cons of all implication of materials nor for sifting material presented by the prosecution and exercise is to be confined to consider the police report and documents to decide the allegations against the accused person.
6. While interpreting the scope and extent of S. 227 & 228 of Cr.PC. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent and Rememberance of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar, 1979 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1038 that a Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 4 of 9 strong suspicion founded upon material constitutive offence is sufficient to frame charge and relevant extract is as under :-
"The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge."
7. In State of Maharasthra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996, SC, 1744, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the court feels that accused might have committed the offence, a case is made out for framing of charge and relevant para reads as under :-
"If on the basis of the material on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exits. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction, the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 5 of 9
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of Bengal, JT 2000(1) SC 13 has laid down the law that there is no need to write an order showing reasons for framing the charge and relevant extract is as under:-
"If the trial court decides to frame a charge, there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. If he forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence which he is competent to try. He is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused."
"If there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court should writ an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all road blocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial Courts would further be slowed down."
9. It has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Mathura Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 6 of 9 Das & others versus State, 2003 II AD(Cr.) DHC 437 that at the time of framing of charge, view which is favourable to prosecution has to be accepted and observation of Hon'ble High Court is as under :
"The existence of a prima facie case may be found even on the basis of strong suspicion against an accused. The assessment, evaluation and weighing of the prosecution evidence in a criminal case at the final stage is on entirely different footing than it is at the stage of framing a charge. At the final stage if two views are possible one of which suggests that the accused may be innocent, then the view favourable for the accused has to be accepted whereas at the stage of framing of the charge, the view which is favourable to the prosecution, has to be accepted for the purpose of framing charge so that in the course of the trial, the prosecution may come out with its explanations in regard to the draw backs and weaknesses, if any, being pointed out by an accused."
10. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau, 2000, SCC (Cri) 200 that at the stage of framing of charge the Court need not deeply examine the probative value of the materials on record and if on the basis of the such material the Court come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the court is obliged to frame the charge. Similarly, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Versus S.B. Johari and Others, 2000 Cri.L.J. 944 (SC) that it is settled law that at the stage Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 7 of 9 of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceedings further then a charge has to be framed. There is no dispute with regard to the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Vijayan's case (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. In view of the statutory provisions and various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of our own Hon'ble High Court, at the stage of framing of the charge, the court is only to see if a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused for trial and even detailed reasons are not to be mentioned. There are specific allegations against the revisionist and two other accused persons in the complaint and statement of the complainant and as per the allegations, it appears that pursuant to the common intention, the revisionist and two other accused persons have caused injuries on the person of the complainant and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charge u/s 323/324/34 IPC against the revisionist and two other accused persons. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order passed by Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 8 of 9 the court of Ld. M.M. Hence revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Trial court record be sent back alongwith a copy of the instant order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Vinod Goel) on 16th December, 2013. District & Sessions Judge Shahdara/KKD Courts, Delhi.
Vijay Kumar Midha Vs. State C.R. No.16/13 Order dated : 16.12.2013 Page 9 of 9