Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Nagpal vs State on 31 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-011849-2023
CR No. 265/2023
Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Nagpal
R/o H. No. 79, Krishna Kunj
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Ms. Sunita
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
R/o H. No. 119, Krishna Kunj
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.09.2023
Date of reserving Order : 24.07.2024
Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2024
ORDER
1. The present revision petition was essentially filed to assail the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Court of Ld. MM, Mahila Court-01, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which charge was framed against the accused (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') for the offences punishable under Sections 323/354 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, FIR in question was registered on the complaint of complainant 'S' (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 2), who stated that on 21.09.2019 at 07:00 PM at AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.08.31 17:31:03 +0530 CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 1 of 7 H. No. 79, Kishan Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi petitioner assaulted her by touching her inappropriately on her breast and further pushed her down thereby outraging her modesty besides causing simple hurt by way of scuffle. The FIR was consequently registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 323/354 IPC and investigation commenced.
3. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police against petitioner for offences under Sections 323/354 IPC. Petitioner/ accused was consequently summoned and admitted to bail by Ld. Trial Court. After hearing the parties on the point of charge, vide impugned order dated 03.04.2023, Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame charge against petitioner/ accused for the offences under Sections 323/354 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The relevant excerpt of the impugned order is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
".... It is a well settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the facts of the case akin to a full- blown trial and probative value of the documents brought on record by the prosecution cannot be decided at this stage. However, the court cannot also be expected to act like a mouthpiece of the prosecution and frame all such charges as alleged in the chargesheet without application of judicial mind. Therefore, what is expected out of a trial court at the stage of framing of charges is that the court remain circumspect and sift and weigh the evidence placed on recrekin order to ward off the possibility of a false implication, thereby, ensuring that an innocent person is not forced to face the rigmarole of a judicial trial. Reliance is placed upon Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat vs. State of UP 2013 (11) SCC 476.
This court is in agreement with the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and considers that one opportunity should be granted to the prosecution to examine its AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.08.31 17:31:11 +0530 CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 2 of 7 witnesses in order to prove the case against the accused. Further, any disparities in the statements of the complainant cannot be decided at this stage of the proceedings without evidence being led. Therefore, prima facie, a case U/s 323/354 IPC is made out against the accused. Charge framed, read over and explained to accused. The accused pleads not guilty and claims trial...."
4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner assailed the same on inter alia following grounds:-
(i) That impugned order passed by Ld. Trail Court is illegal, perverse and passed without application of judicial mind;
(ii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that nothing incriminating had been found against the petitioner/ accused for framing charge against him;
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the complainant had filed a false complaint against him and at the time of recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she wished to withdraw the present case;
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that on the date of passing of the impugned order i.e 03.04.2023, the lawyers were abstaining from work on account of strike in the Bar, as such, the Counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Court and address arguments on the point of charge.
5. No formal reply was filed on behalf of respondents to the present revision petition despite grant of several opportunities. It is though argued on behalf of respondents that present revision petition is abuse of process of law and the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 is just, reasonable and does not suffer from any legal Digitally signed infirmity. AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2024.08.31 17:31:17 +0530 CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 3 of 7
6. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the record.
7. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148, that at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is not expected to hold a mini trial for the purpose of marshalling the evidence on record. The relevant observations are as under:-
".... 18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him.
It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Furthermore, in the case of Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
".... At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating Digitally the signed by AKASH AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.08.31 17:31:24 +0530 CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 4 of 7 materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen...."
9. In the present case, on 21.09.2019 DD No. 55 was received at Police Station Laxmi Nagar, pursuant to which, the police officials reached at H. No. 79, Kishan Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and it was revealed that a quarrel took place between landlord and tenant. Thereafter, both petitioner and complainant arrived at the concerned Police Station and got medically examined at Hedgewar hospital. On the next day i.e. 22.09.2019, complainant 'S' arrived at the Police Station and got recorded her statement wherein she alleged that she had let out her House No. 79, Kishan Kunj, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on rent to petitioner/ accused Sanjeev Nagpal. She alleged that on 21.09.2019, when she went there to demand rent, petitioner/ accused misbehaved with her and used foul language against her. When she confronted the petitioner/ accused, he assaulted her by touching her inappropriately on her breast and further pushed her due to which she fell on the ground and received injuries on leg and hips.
10. In terms of the ratio of judgments discussed above and in view of specific allegations levelled by the complainant against petitioner/ accused in her statement recorded before the police, there are sufficient grounds for framing charge against the petitioner/ accused for alleged offences under Sections 323/354 IPC. As regards argument of Ld. Counsel for petitioner/ accused that the respondent no. 2/ complainant made improvements in her allegations in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is pertinent to note that the complainant nowhere denied the Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: JAIN 2024.08.31 17:31:29 +0530 CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 5 of 7 happening of incident in question and affirmed that an altercation took place between her and petitioner/ accused qua rent. However, she additionally stated that she wished to withdraw the present case.
11. The offence under Section 354 IPC is not a compoundable offence. Mere fact that respondent no. 2 /complainant chose to withdraw her complaint at later stage after setting the criminal law in motion would not absolve the petitioner/ accused from alleged offences in question. It is further apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hazrat Deen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 134, wherein it was held that :-
".... Discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. may be a defence. However, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial...."
12. It is additionally argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/ accused that he was not given fair opportunity by Ld. Trial Court to address arguments on the point of charge. It is argued that on the date of passing of the impugned order i.e 03.04.2023, the lawyers were abstaining from work on account of strike in the Bar, as such, the Counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Court and address his arguments. This argument though lacks merit as trial court record clearly reflects that the arguments on the point of charge were heard way back on 24.11.2022 and the matter was initially fixed for orders/ clarifications on 25.01.2023 and thereafter on 03.04.2023. It was specifically mentioned by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order that the arguments on charge AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.08.31 17:31:37 +0530 CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 6 of 7 were heard on 24.11.2022 and no fresh arguments were addressed on 03.04.2023.
13. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and observations as above, it is held that Ld. Trial Court was justified in framing charges under Sections 323/354 IPC against the petitioner/ accused. There is no infirmity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 which warrants any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
14. Copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2024.08.31
17:31:45
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 31.08.2024 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This order contains 7 pages and each paper is signed by me.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.08.31 17:31:50 +0530 (AKASH JAIN) ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI CR No. 265/23 Sanjeev Nagpal v. State & Anr. Page No. 7 of 7