Delhi District Court
Dixit Sharma vs The State Of Delhi on 12 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.R.No.217/16
CNR No: DLKA010058412016
Dixit Sharma
S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma
R/o 391, Sector7,
Ambala City, Haryana. ....Revisionist
Versus
The State of Delhi
Through SHO, P.S.Mandawali,
Delhi ....Respondent
O R D E R The revisionist has assailed order dated 06.02.2016 by way of present revision wherein the revisionist has been charged for offences under Sections 342/354/354D/452 IPC.
2 Notice was issued to the State/respondent. Trial Court record was summoned.
3 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. Substitute P.P. for the State and have perused the record. 4 Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that only statements under Section 164 & 161 Cr.P.C. are against the accused;
C.R.No 217/16 Dixit Sharma vs. State Page 1 of 4there is no eye witness of the incident; there is no scientific evidence; MLC is refused and Section 323 IPC was dropped. It is submitted that no charge under Section 452 IPC is made out as ingredients thereof i.e. preparation or intention to cause hurt are missing and only offence, if any, under Section 448 IPC is made out. It is further submitted that the revisionist only went to talk to the complainant at her house and when she refused, then he followed her inside the house. There was no preparation or no premeditated intention. There is no allegation either in the complaint or statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which justifies framing of charge under Section 354 IPC. It is submitted that on the basis of statements of complainant and other material available on record, no case for charge under Section 354/452 IPC is made out against the revisionist. In support of above contentions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:
(1) Main Pal vs. State of Haryana (2010) 10 SCC 130; (2) Srichand P. Hinduja & Ors. vs. State through CBI 2005 (82) DRJ 494;
(3) Ramesan & Ors. vs. State of Kerala 2006 SCC OnLine Ker.519; (4) Dal Chand vs. The State 1996 Cri.L.J.236; (5)Subhash Sahebrao Datkar vs. State of Maharastra 2011 Cri.L.J.736;
(6) Chandra Bhusan Dubey and another vs. The State of Bihar 1965 (2) Cri.L.J. 841;
(7) State of Punjab vs. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63; & (8) Mrs.Rupan Deol Bajaj and another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another AIR 1996 SC 309.
5 On the other hand, Ld. Substitute PP for State has C.R.No 217/16 Dixit Sharma vs. State Page 2 of 4 stated that there is sufficient material available on record justifying framing of charges against the revisionist as detailed in the impugned order. There is no merit in the present revision petition and same is liable to be dismissed.
6 I have perused the record. In her complaint given to the Police, the complainant Nikita Ghai stated that Dixit Sharma had been harassing her to continue friendship. On 22.08.2013, accused/revisionist forcefully entered house of the complainant when the complainant was returning from her office; he locked the complainant in the house for 4 hours; he slapped her several times and also warned that he would commit suicide if she did not talk to him; the complainant somehow managed to tell the accused to go back after 4 hours. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant stated that revisionist/accused had been chasing her for past seven years. On 22.08.2013, accused was hiding upstairs in the house of the complainant; he insisted that he wanted to talk to the ocmplainant, when the complainant repelled action of the accused, he pushed her inside; he hit her and stated that he still wanted to be her friend. He also threatened the complainant to commit suicide if she did not continue friendship with him.
7 From the above, it is clear that the complainant was confined in her house for about 4 hours; it has also come on record that revisionist had been chasing the complainant since long; the revisionist has entered the house of the complainant and insisted that C.R.No 217/16 Dixit Sharma vs. State Page 3 of 4 she should continue friendship with him. Thus only offences under Section 342/354D/448 IPC are made out against the revisionist for the purpose of framing charges.
8 There are no allegations either in the complaint or in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to justify framing of charge for offences under Section 354/452 IPC as there is no evidence/material of preparation for causing hurt, assault or wrongful restraint as if a person enters another house and commits assault does not necessarily presuppose such preparation. The sole intention of the revisionist for entering the house of complainant was to persuade the complainant for continuance of friendship. Moreover, necessary ingredients to frame charge under Section 354 IPC are not made out. 9 In view of this, no charge under Section 354/452 IPC could not have been framed against the revisionist and only charges under Section 342/354D/442 r/w 448 IPC are made out against the revisionist. Accordingly, impugned order on charge and formal framing of charge under Sections 354/452 IPC dated 06.02.2016 are set aside. Ld. Trial Court is directed to reframe charges in view of this order. Revision petition is accordingly disposed of. TCR be sent back along with copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH )
Dated: 12.08.2016 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
C.R.No 217/16 Dixit Sharma vs. State Page 4 of 4