Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohd. Vakil & Ors vs State on 11 May, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 51/2022 & CRL.M.A. 1475/2022
MOHD. VAKIL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia, Mr. Hitesh Saini,
Mr. Mahendra Bairwa and Ms. Hina
Rajput, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State
with SI Avanti, P. S. Sarai Rohilla,
Delhi
Mr. M. M. Kashyap for Respondent
no. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 11.05.2022
1. The instant revision petition under section 397/399/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "CrPC") has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 22nd November, 2021 passed by the learned ASJ, SPL.FTC-2 (Central Ditrict), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 141/2020 in FIR no. 62/2018 registered at Police Station Saria Rohilla for the offence punishable under Section 498A/376/ 109/114/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC").
2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 4 got married on 28 th April 2017 at Delhi as per Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:18.05.2022 18:19:45 Muslim rites and customs. Ever since the marriage, petitioners have been harassing, insulting by hurling, indecent abusing and gave beating to respondent no. 2. They also harassed and insisted for dowry, else petitioner no.4 would divorce and kill respondent no. 2. Petitioner no. 4 also forced respondent no. 2 to make sexual relations with petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1 to 3 also made her eat intoxicated pills and tie her hands to perform atrocities.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the present case and the learned ASJ has wrongly framed the charges against the petitioner without appreciating the material available on record.
4. It is submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact the present FIR has been registered after unexplained delay of seven months and hence the FIR is nothing but an afterthought. It is submitted that allegations made in the FIR are erroneous and baseless as there is no mention of any specific date or time of the alleged incident.
5. It is submitted that the complainant has improved her version under section 164 CrPC which is totally contrary to the complaint on the basis of which the instant FIR was registered. It is further submitted that the present case pertains to a matrimonial dispute and the complainant had roped thee entire family in rape case.
6. Per Contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie view is to be taken. The material on record prima facie discloses the offences for which charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations of dowry, cruelty, rape and abetment of rape against Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:18.05.2022 18:19:45 the accused persons and the same is duly recorded in her statements under section 161 and 164 CrPC.
7. It is submitted that the learned ASJ has correctly passed the order after considering all the statements and documents available on record and therefore the instant petition is nothing but a gross misuse of law and needs to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that instant FIR has been filed by the complainant against the accused persons due to harassment and ill treatment by her in-laws which has been clearly mentioned in statements under Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC.
9. It is submitted that the entire life of the complainant was ruined due to illegal activities and harassing attitude and the accused perosns used to give intoxicant tablets and use to tight her hands and legs forcibly, used to harass and tried to forcefully make physical relations and since then she is under depression and trauma. It is further submitted that the learned ASJ has correctly charged the petitioner and hence the instant petition is devoid of merits and needs to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samadhan Baburao Khakare v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 72 has highlighted the objectives and importance of Charge in criminal trial in the following words:
"11. The whole purpose and object of framing charges is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet, and if the charge is framed in such a vague manner that the necessary ingredients of the offence with which the accused is convicted is not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:18.05.2022 18:19:45 brought out in the charge then the charge is not only defective but illegal. It is no doubt that when the accused is charged with a major offence, he can be convicted of a minor offence. It is true that what is major offence and what is minor offence is not defined. The gravity of offence must depend upon the severity of the punishment that can be inflicted, but the major and the minor offences must be cognate offences which have the main ingredients in common, and a man charged with one offence which is entirely of a different nature from the offence which is proved to have been committed by him, cannot in the absence of a proper charge be convicted of that offence, merely on the ground that the facts proved constitute a minor offence. For example, a man charged with an offence of murder cannot be convicted for forgery or misappropriation of funds, or such offences which do not constitute offences against person, the reason being that the accused had no opportunity in such a case to make defence, which may have been open to him, if he had been charged with the offence for which he is to be convicted."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumari v. State of J&K, (2011) 9 SCC 234 has comprehensively dealt with the question and purpose of framing of charges as under:
"18. The object of the charge is to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction. If, therefore, the necessary information is conveyed to him in other ways and there is no prejudice, the framing of the charge is not invalidated. The essential part of this part of law is not any technical formula of words but the reality, whether the matter was explained to the accused and whether he understood what he was being tried for. Sections 34, 114 and 149 IPC provide for criminal liability viewed from different Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:18.05.2022 18:19:45 angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; and as explained by a five-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. [AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1956 Cri LJ 291 : (1955) 2 SCR 1140] SCR at p. 1189, the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Main Pal v. State of Haryana, (2010) 10 SCC 130 observed as follows:
"(i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged."
Thus, what can be seen from the above extract is the fact that the object of framing of charge is to make the accused aware about the defence that is required to be brought in through evidence and witnesses.
14. It is also required to be noted that the charge does not render a conclusive finding with respect to guilt or innocence of the accused. The charge is merely an indication to the accused about the offence for which he is being tried for. In this regard, it is essential to take note of the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esher Singh v. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585 :
"20. Section 2(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") defines "charge" as follows:Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:18.05.2022 18:19:45
"2. (b) „charge‟ includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one;"
The Code does not define what a charge is. It is the precise formulation of the specific accusation made against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the earliest stage. A charge is not an accusation made or information given in the abstract, but an accusation made against a person in respect of an act committed or omitted in violation of penal law forbidding or commanding it. In other words, it is an accusation made against a person in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him. A charge is formulated after inquiry as distinguished from the popular meaning of the word as implying inculpation of a person for an alleged offence as used in Section 224 IPC."
15. At the stage of framing of charge, court has to see whether prima facie case is made out or not. In the instant case, upon perusal of record, this Court is also of the view that prima facie case against the petitioners cannot be ruled out, therefore the learned ASJ has correctly framed charges under Sections 498-A/376/109/114/506/34 of the IPC against the all petitioners.
16. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and having perused the provisions of law, this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 22nd November 2021.
17. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MAY 11, 2022 gs/ct Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:18.05.2022 18:19:45