Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- 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

Naresh Chaube vs State on 12 July, 2018

                  IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN 
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE / SPECIAL JUDGE: (NDPS)
              WEST  DISTRICT :  TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF :­

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 186/2018.

NARESH CHAUBE
S/O SH. MAHABIR KUMAR CHAUBEY
R/O H. NO. 25, 1ST FLOOR,
TAGORE MARK, KEWAL PARK,
AZAD PUR, DELHI.
                                                                     .....REVISIONIST.

                                VERSUS
STATE
THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTION BRANCH,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
                                                          
                                                                    .....RESPONDENT.

   DATE OF INSTITUTION OF REVISION    : 04.07.2018.

   DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER                                     : 12.07.2018.
   DATE OF ANNOUNCING THE ORDER                                    : 12.07.2018.

                                           O R D E R 
                                           (12.07.2018)

1.   By   this   order,   I   have   to   decide   a   revision   petition   filed   by revisionist/accused Naresh Chaube (in  short revisionist) impugning the order dated 31.05.2018 (in short impugned order) passed by Ms.   Manu Vedwan, Ld. MM­01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(in short Ld. Trial   Court),   in   FIR   No.   495/2017,   PS   Punjabi   Bagh,   Delhi,   titled   as "State Vs. Harish Tiwari & Ors.", vide which order on charge for the CR No. 186/18 Naresh Chaube Vs. State Page no. 1/3 offences punishable under sections 384/389/120B IPC has been passed against the revisionist alongwith co­accused Subhash Sharma(in short co­ accused) and this impugned order has been challenged only by revisionist herein.

2.   The   notice   of   this   petition   was   accepted   by   learned   Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State/respondent(in short respondent). 

3.   The main grounds taken in this revision petition are to the effect that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the allegations levelled by the complainant as well as material placed with the chargesheet filed by the IO of the case, does not make prima facie case for framing of charges under  sections 384/389/120B IPC  against the revisionist ;  that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the offence u/s 389 IPC has not been made out against the revisionist as there is no allegation made by the complainant either in his complaint  or in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C against the revisionist.

4.   This revision petition has been strongly opposed orally from Ld. Addl. PP for respondent mainly on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court, after considering   the   evidence   available   on   the   record,   found   that   the revisionist   alongwith   co­accused   hatched   a   criminal   conspiracy   of extorting the money from the complainant on the pretext of publishing obscene   morphed   photos/videos   of   complainant   ;   that   the   revisionist alongwith co­accused intentionally put the complainant in fear of injury to his   reputation   and   defaming   him   publicly   and   that   they   put   the complainant in fear of implicating him in false criminal cases like rape and murder and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

CR No. 186/18 Naresh Chaube Vs. State Page no. 2/3

5.   Arguments  on  this   revision  petition   have  been  heard  from   both sides   and   judicial   file   perused   minutely,   including   trial   Court record(TCR), in view of rival submissions from both sides, as mentioned above.

6.   On the basis of entire material on record at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned   order   at   this   stage   after   appreciating   the   facts   and circumstances of this case for the purpose of passing impugned order. In the further considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not require   any   interference,   of   any   sort,   by   this   Court,   at   this   stage  and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld. The present revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merits.

7.   TCR be sent back forthwith, along with the copy of this order, for information to the learned Trial Court and asking the learned Trial Court to proceed further in the matter as per law. The revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 20.07.2018 to face further proceedings of this case as per law.

8.   The   revision   petition   file   be   consigned   to   Record   Room after necessary formalities as per rules/law. 

Digitally signed by DOCTOR
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT                            DOCTOR
                                                       SHAHABUDDIN
                                                                            SHAHABUDDIN

ON : 12th July, 2018.                                                       Date: 2018.07.13
                                                                            16:59:33 +0530
                                                          (DR. SHAHABUDDIN)
                                                         ASJ/Special Judge(NDPS)
                                                         West District/THC/DELHI.




CR No. 186/18                 Naresh Chaube Vs. State                                Page no. 3/3