Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Ramesh Chand Jain vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 25 February, 2016

IN THE COURT OF  PRAVEEN KUMAR,  A.S.J. (SPECIAL FAST 
TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.

CR No. 47/15.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0162992015.

In FIR No.23/2011
U/s.325/34 IPC
P.S. Dwarka Sector­23.

Ramesh Chand Jain
S/o Sh. Harsahay Mal Jain,
R/o H.No. WZ­596, Palam Village,
New Delhi - 110 045.                      ...........   Petitioner.
              Vs.
1.    The State (NCT of Delhi)

2. Narender Kumar Jain
   S/o Sh. Prem Chand Jain,
   R/o WZ­603A, Palam Village,
   New Delhi - 110 045.

3. Pulkit Jain.
   S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain,
   R/o WZ­603A, Palam Village,
   New Delhi - 110 045.

4. Gaurav Jain
   S/o Sh. Narender Kumar jain,
   R/o WZ­603A, Palam Village,
   New Delhi - 110 045.



CA No.47/15. (Ramesh C. Jain vs. Narender Kr.Jain etc.)  Page 1 of 4
 5. Smt. Hem Lata
   W/o Sh. Narender Kumar Jain,
   R/o WZ­603A, Palam Village,
   New Delhi - 110 045.

6. Padam Chand Jain
   S/o Shri Harsahay Mal Jain,
   R/o 1002, Pachmadi Tower,
   Kaushambi, Ghaziabad (U.P.).

7. Sanjay Sharma
   S/o Sh. Rattan Jyoti Sharma,
   R/o WZ­603B, Palam Village,
   New Delhi - 110 045.                          ...........   Respondents.

Date of Institution : 23.11.2015.

Date of Arguments : 22.02.2016. 

Date of judgment    : 25.02.2016.

 J udgment

1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 05.8.2015 passed by the Ld. M.M. whereby the protest petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/complainant for addition of section 307 IPC against the respondent nos.2 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') was dismissed.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.3.2011 a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the police of P.S. CA No.47/15. (Ramesh C. Jain vs. Narender Kr.Jain etc.) Page 2 of 4 Sector­23 Dwarka, New Delhi on which FIR no.23/2011 u/s.325/34 IPC was registered. In the said complaint, it is alleged that respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to the petitioner and thereby caused grevious injuries on his person. After investigation, Charge Sheet was filed by the prosecution against respondents for commission of offence u/s.325/34 IPC.

3. Vide impugned order, Charge u/s.325/506 IPC was framed against the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. I have heard Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Satvinder Kaur, Ld. APP for respondent no.1­ State and Sh. A.K. Roy, Ld. Counsel for respondents. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the ingredients of section 307 IPC are attracted as the intention of the respondents was to kill the petitioner. According to the Ld. Counsel, respondents are liable to be tried for the offence u/s.307 IPC.

5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents has contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. He has further contended that a complaint case was also filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the alleged offence prior to lodging of the present FIR. However, no offence u/s.307 IPC was CA No.47/15. (Ramesh C. Jain vs. Narender Kr.Jain etc.) Page 3 of 4 disclosed at that time.

6. I have perused the Trial Court record. In his complaint, complainant has alleged that respondents­ Sanjay and Padam strangulated him and all the respondents were threatening to kill him. However, these averments are not sufficient for invoking section 307 IPC. For framing of charge, overall facts and circumstances are to be seen. For the alleged incident dated 25.11.2009, present FIR was lodged on 10.3.2011. For the alleged incident, complaint u/s.200 Cr.PC was also filed by the petitioner in the court of Ld. M.M. A perusal of the same shows that there are no allegations of section 307 IPC therein. There is no grave suspicion against respondents for commission of offence u/s.307 IPC.

7. In these circumstances and for the abovesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The revision petition has no merit. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of the judgment and revision file be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced in open                                 (PRAVEEN KUMAR)
Court on 25.2.2016.                                Addl. Sessions Judge
                                              (Special Fast Track Court)
                                              Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.




CA No.47/15. (Ramesh C. Jain vs. Narender Kr.Jain etc.)  Page 4 of 4