Delhi District Court
Chattar Singh Kain vs The State on 9 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Revision No. 360/17
In the matter of:
1. Chattar Singh Kain
S/o Late Ganga Das Ken
R/o H. No. 403/AC Budh Vihar,
Munirka Gaon, New Delhi67
.
2. Raju Raikwar
S/o Late Kishan Lal Raikwar
R/o H. No. T401/CDE/3 Budh Vihar,
Munirka Gaon, New Delhi67
3. Milind
S/o Sh. Chattar Singh Ken
R/o 403/AC, Budh Vihar,
Munirka Gaon, New Delhi67 ....Petitioners.
Versus
The State
Through Department of Prosecution,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi. .....Respondent.
Date of Institution : 21.08.2017
Date of Arguments : 07.10.2017
Date of Decision : 09.10.2017
JUDGMENT
CR No. 360/17 1 of 5 07.01.2017
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by Ld. MM. Vide which Ld. MM has ordered to frame the charges for the offences punishable under Section 323, 509 and 506 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC against the petitioners.
2. Aggrieved by order dated 23.05.2017, the petitioners have filed present revision petition on the grounds that the order of Ld. MM is based on conjectures and surmises and therefore, liable to be set aside. The order of Ld. Trial Court is against settled principle of law and same suffers from illegality and liable to be set aside. Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that statements of witnesses and material available on the record are not sufficient to charge the petitioners under Section 323/506/509/34 IPC. IO has not collected any photo or CCTV footage to show that alleged incident had taken place. Ld. MM did not appreciate that several civil and criminal matters are also pending between the parties. It is prayed that order dated 23.05.2017 be set aside and accused persons be discharged.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Addl. PP for State at length and perused the records of this court as well as Trial CR No. 360/17 2 of 5 07.01.2017 Court very carefully.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has argued on the lines of revision petition.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 23.05.2017 and same be affirmed.
5. The above mentioned case was registered on the application given by complainant Kamlesh W/o Late Lal Chand to the SHO, PS Vasant Vihar that she went to her plot and noticed that Milind Singh along with his father Chattar Singh and her tenant and other unknown boys and girls were making video of her plot. When she forbade them and she made a call at 100 number at 2.08 PM, then cameraman along with camera and unknown boys and girls fled from the spot. Thereafter, Chattar Singh, Milind Singh @ Appu and her tenant had threatened to kill her, abused her and fled from the spot.
6. On the basis of the complaint investigation was carried out and statement of complainant was recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C in which she has reiterated the version of the FIR and also stated that accused Appu had pushed her. The complaint was given on 28.02.2015 whereas the statement CR No. 360/17 3 of 5 07.01.2017 of complainant was recorded on 24.03.2015. During investigation IO has recorded the supplementary statement of complainant on 28.02.2015. I have perused the statement of complainant recorded on 28.02.2015. Even in this statement complainant has not mentioned that accused Milind has given push to her. If the complainant was pushed by the accused Milind @ Appu then this fact should have been mentioned in the complaint. Ld. MM did not notice this fact and rather passed order to frame charge u/s. 323/34 IPC on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. I am of the view that it is a fit case to discharge the petitioners u/s. 323/34 IPC. Regarding other allegations the accused persons have criminally intimated complainant with death and committed offence punishable under Section 506 (II) IPC r/w 34 IPC and also in furtherance of common intention they intended to insult the modesty of complainant by uttering filthy abuses and committed offence punishable under Section 509 IPC r/w 34 IPC. I am of the view that there is enough material on record to frame charge under Section 506 (II) IPC r/w 34 IPC and under Section 509 IPC r/w 34 IPC against all the accused persons.
7. No cogent or convincing reason is disclosed entitling discharge of the petitioner. Further, at the stage of framing of Charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The Apex Court in a number of CR No. 360/17 4 of 5 07.01.2017 cases had held that at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the court is not required; nor the adequacy of the evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The same view has been held by their Lordship in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl.L.J.746 and Omwati Vs. State through Delhi Admn,. 2001 (2) Crimes 59.
8. In view of the above discussions, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is party allowed and all the petitioners are discharged for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC. I am also of the view that there is enough material on record to frame charge under Section 506 (II) IPC r/w 34 IPC and under Section 509 IPC r/w 34 IPC against all the accused and Ld. MM has rightly ordered to frame charge under Section 506 (II) IPC r/w 34 IPC and under Section 509 IPC r/w 34 IPC against the petitioners.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the TCR. Revision file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court (N.K. Malhotra)
on 09.10.2017. Spl. Judge, CBI02,
New Delhi District, PHC.
CR No. 360/17
5 of 5
07.01.2017