Delhi District Court
Revision No. 51/ vs Prince Aduvanshi on 1 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE:NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
REVISION NO. 51/11
STATE
THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DELHI
............REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. PRINCE ADUVANSHI
S/O RAM NIWAS
R/O 107, VILLAGE, PITAM PURA,
DELHI
2. SACHIN ADUVANSHI
S/O RAM NIWAS
R/O 107, VILLAGE PITAM PURA,
DELHI
3. R. K. LAMBA
S/O SANT RAM
R/O H. NO. 7/9, RAMESH NAGAR,
DELHI
...........RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.10.2011
DATE OF HEARING ARGUMENTS :
01.08.2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01.08.2012
ORDER
By this order, I shall dispose of revision petition filed under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.08.2011, passed by CR NO.51/11 Page 1 of 7 the ld. Trial Court, whereby the ld. Trial Court has discharged the respondents, namely, Prince Aduvanshi, Sahin Aduvanshi and R.K. Lamba, for the offence punishable under sections 186/353/332 IPC in a case, entitled as State Vs. Prince etc., FIR No. 1501/06, U/s 186/353/332 PS Saraswati Vihar. It has been prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order dated 05.08.2011, passed by the ld. Trial Court be set aside and the respondents be charged for the said offences.
2. It has been contended by the ld. Addl. PP for the State/revisionist that ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the accused/respondents voluntarily obstructed the police officials, namely, SI Rajeev Ranjan, ASI Rohtash, Const. Satish and Const. Manoj, while they were discharging their officials duty and concerned ACP had filed the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C., in the court of Ld. ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi. It has further been contended that ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that any irregularity in the investigation should not be allowed to be made a tool to dislodge the entire prosecution case on merits, and benefit of an act or omission of the investigating agency should not be go to the accused/respondent. It has further been contended that the impugned order dated 05.08.2011 has been passed by ld. Trial Court, on the surmises and CR NO.51/11 Page 2 of 7 conjectures, rather than on the true facts of the case. It has further been contended that the Ld. Trial Court, vide its impugned order, dated 05.08.2011, has wrongly discharged the respondents, in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which is totally unwarranted, erroneous and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has contended that ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, dated 05.08.2011, regarding the discharge of the respondents, It has further been contended that there is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the order dated 05.08.2011, regarding the discharge of respondents. It has been prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments on behalf of ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record file carefully.
5. Section 186 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference-
Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term CR NO.51/11 Page 3 of 7 which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
6. Section 332 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference-
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
7. Section 353 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference-
Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence CR NO.51/11 Page 4 of 7 of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
8. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court has observed, inter-alia, in its order dated 05.08.2011, that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer, SI Rajiv Ranjan was the member of the patrolling party and he only sent the rukka for registration of the FIR. He was the member of the party who was allegedly man handled by the accused persons, so possibility of him being biased cannot be ruled out, as he was personally interested in the case. He should, at the most, have been made a witness to the alleged incident and the case should have been investigated by some other officer. By making a complainant the IO, where he has personal interest, is undoubtedly, against the principle of natural justice. Moreover the witnesses, cited by the prosecution, mentions the name of the members of the patrolling police party only and it is surprising that in a public function, the police could not find, even a single independent eye witness. At least the name of the persons present there should have been mentioned in the charge-sheet. It is well settled that, only in case, where it is shown that the evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the CR NO.51/11 Page 5 of 7 guilt of accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged, in cross- examination or rebutted by defence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone court can discharge the accused. In the present case, no amount of evidence can bring home the guilt of the accused persons, when the investigation itself suffers from the blemish of being biased and prejudiced. In view of the above observations and findings, no case U/s 186/353/332 IPC is made out against any of the accused persons.
9. During the course of arguments, ld Addl. PP for the State/revisionist has not been able to show an iota of material, on the record file, to come to the conclusion that the respondents were responsible for the offences, alleged against them. Thus, ld. Trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that no case for framing of charge against the respondents was made out.
10. In view of the above discussions as well as observations made by ld. Trial Court, in its order, dated 05.08.2011, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court was justified regarding the fact that, prima-facie, a case for the offences punishable U/s 186/332/353 IPC has not been made out against the accused persons/respondents. Ld. Trial Court has rightly discharged the respondents for the offences, alleged against them. There is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in CR NO.51/11 Page 6 of 7 the order dated 05.08.2011, passed by the ld. Trial Court. The present revision petition deserves to be dismissal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
11. The ld. Trial Court record with copy of this order be sent back.
Revision file be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAMESH KUMAR)
COURT TODAY i.e. 01.08.2012 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.51/11 Page 7 of 7