Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct on 17 February, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF RAJIV MEHRA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:DELHI.
Cr. Rev.169/06
1. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Richha Ram
2. Deepak Kumar
S/o Sh. Richha Ram
Both Residents of :-
211, Bhera Enclave,
Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110041 .......Petitioners
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) ......Respondent
ORDER
This order will dispose of the present revision petition preferred by the two of the accused out of the four accused against whom vide order dated 14.11.2006 charge for 2 the offence under Section 292 read with 509/34/354/34/506 IPC was framed against all of them and also a separate charge was framed against both the accused Deepak and Satish who are revisionists herein for the offence under Section 379 IPC.
2. Heard the ld. Counsel. Perused the record. The case was initially registered for the offence under Section 354/506/509/34 IPC against all the four accused who are by name in this complaint. In the course of the investigation statement of one witness Om Parkash was also recorded which shows that while running away from the spot the two petitioners herein namely Satish and Deepak caught hold him and removed his gold chain with pendent of 'Om'.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant party as well as accused party both were tenant in the premises. They were involved in past disputes. According to him the accused party had made many complaints against the complainant party apprehending their false arrest on their instance. According to him the Ld. Trial Court has misquoted 3 this fact by making an observation in the order by which the charge was directed to be framed that there are number of complaints against the accused persons by the complainant. According to him the trial court has not properly appreciated the submissions and the records and he request for remanding back of the case to the trial court for reappraisal of the arguments on the point of charge.
3. Perused the entire record. There are specific allegations in the statement of the complainant Anju Bala that four accused on the date of incident on 14.3.92 at about 8.00 pm in H.No.75, Model Basti had brought her to the adjoining room where they were watching a blue film which was objected by her and upon that all four of them insulted her. At the same time there is also the statement of Om Parkash to the effect that while going away from the spot accused Satish snatched his gold chain with pendent of 'Om' and at that point of time accused Deepak was catching hold him.
4. Under Section 240 Cr.PC which is applicable to the 4 trial of a warrant case by Magistrate and deals with the framing of charge, the trial court, if upon, consideration, examination, if any, and hearing is of the view that there is a ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence which he is competent to try and which in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he can frame a charge against accused.
5. By reading of Section 240 Cr.PC there is no requirement envisaged under the law upon the Magistrate framing the charge of recording any reason; If on record there is sufficient material which shows the involvement of the accused persons with the commission of the offence, the trial court even without recording the detailed order may frame a charge against them.
6. So far as the present case is concerned, it may be seen that there are clear allegations against all the accused of taking the complainant to the room where they were watching the blue film. The allegations are to the effect that they wanted the complainant to see the movie with them which she refused upon 5 which she was threatened and she was also abused and insulted. Upon these allegations primafacie there appears to be made out a charge for the offence under Section 292/506/509/34 IPC. However, on these set of allegations there was no need to frame the charge under Section 354 IPC as framed by the trial court vide impugned order. There is no mention of use of criminal force or assault.
7. At the same time there are clear allegations in the statement of Om Parkash regarding the two petitioners herein to the effect that accused Deepak caught hold him and accused Satish snatched gold chain with pendent of 'Om'. Accordingly there is no infirmity in the impugned order so far as charge against two of them for the offence under Section 379 IPC has been framed by the trial court.
8. On the overall perusal of record there is no need to send back the case to the trial court for rehearing on the point of charge as framed and order of charge and charge as framed are hereby modified to the extent that charge for the offence under 6 Section 354 IPC be taken out and trial court would re- frame the remaining charges and would proceed with the matter as per law. Copy of this order alongwith the trial court record be sent back. Revision stand disposed of accordingly.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 17.2.2007.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI.
7