Delhi District Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Kulwant Singh on 22 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No.144/2013
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor,
West Delhi. .....Petitioner.
Versus
Kulwant Singh, S/o Dayal Singh,
R/o IIIB/4, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. ..... Respondent.
A N D CR No.145/2013 Rajinder Singh, S/o Sardar Dayal Singh, R/o IIIB/4, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. ..... Petitioner.
Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondent.
Date of Arguments. : 16.05.2015.
Date of Judgment. : 22.05.2015.
: J U D G M E N T:
1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose off the above (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.1 of pages 8 titled two revision petitions, whereby the petitioners have challenged order dated 02.07.2013 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a case bearing FIR No.710/2005 PS Tilak Nagar, U/s 498A/406 IPC titled as State Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors., vide which Ld. Trial Court directed to frame charge punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC against the accused/Petitioner Rajinder Singh (in CR No.145/2013) and discharged the accused/respondent Kulwant Singh (in CR No. 144/2013) for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC.
2. I have heard the respective rival submissions of Sh. Davender Hora, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in CR No. 145/2013 and Counsel for respondent in CR No.144/2013 and also of Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/petitioner in CR No.144/2013 and respondent in CR No.145/2013. I have also perused the entire material placed on record including the record summoned from the trial court.
3. Law in respect of the question of framing of charge is well settled. At this preliminary stage of trial, the Court is not required to see and evaluate the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution meticulously with an idea to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. At this stage, the Court is required to see only prima facie evidence and even the charge can be framed on the basis of grave suspicion. At the same time it is also well established that the Court cannot act merely as a PostOffice or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
In the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1979 SC 366 titled as Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another it was held that, "the (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.2 of pages 8 Judge while considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code 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 had been made out. In para 10 of the judgment, the Court further observed: (1).That the Judge while considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code 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;
(2).Whether the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3).The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4).That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Judge which (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.3 of pages 8 under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a PostOffice or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. In Harish Chander Singh Vs. State of Uttranchal 2006 CRLJ (NOC) 162 (Uttranchal) it has been held that, "The Magistrate should discuss in order that evidence on the basis of which the court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given in order while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused."
In 1994 (1) C.C. Cases 578 (HC) titled as Bhim Singh Vs. State, it was held that, "The stage of framing of charges is an important stage in the criminal trial and the Judge concerned has to carefully evaluate and consider the entire available material on record and he must judiciously apply his mind. Framing of charges erroneously would mean futile criminal prosecution for several year. The responsibility of the Judge concerned is particularly far greater in our country because of long delay in criminal trials and final disposal of criminal cases."
4. The perusal of record reveals that in the instant case Ld. (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.4 of pages 8 Trial Court has simply passed the order on charge regarding framing of charge against accused Kulwant Singh and discharge of accused Rajinder Singh without recording any observation or reason as to how she came to the said conclusion. The impugned order is reproduced as under: "02.07.2013 ORDER ON CHARGE Present: Ld. APP for the State Accused Rajinder Singh is present with proxy counsel. Accused Kulwant Singh is absent.
Accused Dayal Singh has already expired and proceedings against him have already been abated vide order dt. 11.05.2012.
An exemption application from personal appearance on behalf of accused Kulwant Singh has been moved.
Heard. In view of the averments mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Accused Kulwant Singh is exempted from personal appearance for today only.
Arguments on the point of Charge heard. I have perused the case file. There is sufficient material on record to frame the charge for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC against the accused Rajinder Singh.
From the perusal of the file, it is also revealed that there is no allegation levelled against the accused Kulwant Singh. Accordingly, accused Kulwant Singh is discharged for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC. Bail bonds, if any, of accused Kulwant Singh stands cancelled. Surety, if any, stands discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the rightful claimant against acknowledgment.
List on 24.08.2013 for framing of charge against accused Rajinder Singh for the offence U/s 498A/406 IPC."
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that Ld. Trial Court has assigned no reason as to how she came to the conclusion that there are sufficient prima facie mater for framing of charge against the accused Rajinder Singh and for not framing of (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.5 of pages 8 charge against the coaccused Kulwant Singh and passing of an order of discharge in his favour. Ld. Trial Court should have passed a reasoned order regarding her arrival of above conclusion specially regarding discharge of accused Rajinder Singh. In view of above the impugned order as passed by the Trial Court can not be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. Case is now remanded back to Ld. Trial Court with a direction to pass a reasoned order afresh after giving opportunity to the both the accused persons to make their submissions.
6. Copy of this judgment along with TCR (which is tagged with the file bearing CR No.145/2013 be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
7. Revisionist Rajinder Singh (in CR No.145/2013) and respondent Kulwant Singh (in CR No.144/2013) are directed to appear before the court of concerned Ld. MM (Mahila Court), West District on 05.06.2015.
8. Copy of this judgment be placed in both the revision files.
9. Revision files (i.e. files bearing CR No.144/2013 and CR No.145/2013) be consigned to Record room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR1) Court on 22nd May, 2015) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS) (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.6 of pages 8 CR No.144/2013 State Vs. Kulwant Singh 22.05.2014 Present: Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. PP for State/petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Sh. Devender Hora, Ld. Counsel for respondent. Vide a common judgment, both the revision petitions stand disposed off.
Copy of this judgment along with TCR (which is tagged with file bearing CR No.145/2013) be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
Respondent/accused Kulwant Singh is directed to appear before the court of concerned Ld. MM (Mahila Court), West District on 05.06.2015.
Revision file be consigned to Record room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS) (West) 22.05.2015 (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.7 of pages 8 CR No.145/2013 Rajinder Singh Vs. State 22.05.2014 Present: Revisionist in person.
Sh. Devender Hora, Ld. Counsel for revisionist. Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent. Vide a common judgment, both the revision petitions stand disposed off.
Copy of this judgment along with TCR be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
Revisionist/accused Rajinder Singh is directed to appear before the court of concerned Ld. MM (Mahila Court), West District on 05.06.2015.
Revision file be consigned to Record room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS) (West) 22.05.2015 (State Vs. Kulwant Singh CR No.144/2013) & (Rajinder Singh Vs. State CR No.145/2013) Page No.8 of pages 8