Delhi District Court
Subhash Chander vs . The State on 13 November, 2018
Subhash Chander Vs. The State
CR No: 440176/16
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH DUDANI, SPECIAL
JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-I DWARKA COURTS; ND
Subhash Chander
S/o Sh. Hira Lal
R/o RZF-133/1, Gali No. 6,
DDA Park Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
.............revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Saroop Singh S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o RZF-133/1, Gali No. 6
Near Sudhir Atta Chaki
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Raj Bala W/o Saroop Singh
R/o RZF-133/1, Gali No. 6
Near Sudhir Atta Chaki
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony
New Delhi.
4. Kumari Neetu D/o Saroop Singh
R/o RZF-133/1, Gali No. 6
Near Sudhir Atta Chaki
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony
New Delhi.
5. Unknown person
........Respondents
CR No:440176/2016 Page 1 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018
Subhash Chander Vs. The State
CR No: 440176/16
CR No. 440176/2016
Date of Institution 30.06.2015
Police Station Palam Village
Reserved for orders on 30.10.2018
Judgment announced on 13.11.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 passed by Ld. MM-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby Ld. MM has been pleased to frame charge under Section 324 IPC against the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) .
2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are as under:
3. The aforesaid revision petition arises out of case FIR no. 359/13 under Sections 324/34 IPC, PS Palam Village which was registered on the basis of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. of complainant (revisionist herein) filed before the Ld. Trial Court in complaint case no. 258/01, titled as Subhash Chander Vs. Saroop Singh & Others under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. Vide order dated 08.10.2013, Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to allow the CR No:440176/2016 Page 2 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR under Section 324/34 IPC in complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. titled as Subhash Chander v. Saroop Singh & Ors.
4. In his complaint, the complainant ( revisionist herein) has stated that accused Saroop Singh (respondent no. 2) is his immediate neighbour who causes trouble not only for the complainant but also for the other residents of the gali by draining human waste and urine in the open drain channel which causes pathetic smell and unhygienic environment in the locality and many times complainant requested the accused persons to stop the overt act of draining-out their human waste in the open drainage but accused persons remain adamant and finding no other alternative, the complainant made complaints to Dy. Commissioner, SW Zone, Najafagarh New Delhi and also to the SHO, Palam Village against accused no. 1 (respondent no. 2 herein) on 10.06.2013 and 03.06.2013 respectively, due to which the accused persons took enmity with him. It is further stated in the complaint that on 12.07.2013 in the evening, the accused (respondent no. 1) along with other accused persons i.e. his wife, daughter and one unknown person in connivance CR No:440176/2016 Page 3 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 with each other, attacked the complainant and during the scuffle, accused Saroop Singh( respondent no. 1) took a rod from his house and dashed on the head of the complainant while the other accused persons grabbed him from his behind to make him immobile and the complainant received grievous injury measuring 10x3x3 cm on his head and blood was oozing out from his head and he became unconscious and thereafter police was called and complainant was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter complainant along with his family went to the PS for registration of a case against the accused persons but police refused to register a case and he was pressurized to compromise the matter. Thereafter complainant compromised the matter. It is stated that after the said incident, almost every day at around 1 am in the night, someone started banging complainant's door or attacked the same with pebbles and after coming to know that police has not taken any action against the accused persons, complainant has made a written complaint against the accused persons regarding the brutal attack on him on 12.07.2013 to the police station Palam Village but no action was taken by the police. Complainant thereafter filed the complaint before Ld. Trial Court.
5. On the basis of complaint of complainant, a CR No:440176/2016 Page 4 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 case FIR no. 359/13 under Sections 324/34 IPC, PS Palam Village was registered .
6. Vide order dated 27.03.2015, Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to order for framing of charge under Section 324 IPC against the accused and charge under Section 324 IPC was framed against the accused Saroop Singh on 17.4.2015.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2015 whereby Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to frame charge under Section 324 IPC against accused Saroop Singh (respondent no. 2 herein), the complainant (revisionist herein) has filed the present revision petition stating therein that impugned order is bad in the eyes of law as the same is totally based on misinterpretation of law and non-appreciation of the facts of the case. It is stated in the revision petition that Ld. Trial Court did not consider the material facts on record including the contents of the FIR in which revisionist has categorically mentioned the role of other accused persons and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and hence dropping of section 34 IPC while framing the charge on 17.04.2015 is bad in the eyes of law at such a premature stage. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of Section 307 IPC and not 324 IPC. It is stated that impugned order is bad in the eyes of law as the Trial Court is silent on CR No:440176/2016 Page 5 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 the point of dropping of section 34 IPC despite the specific role of the other accused mentioned in the FIR and also in the statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. . It is stated that the injury was inflicted on the vital part of the body of the complainant which endangered the life of the complainant, hence the same is grievous in nature as defined under Section 320 IPC and the act of the accused persons clearly fall under Section 307 IPC.
8. Reply to the revision petition has been filed on behalf of respondents i.e. respondent no. 2 to 4 in which they have denied each and every content of the revision petition and have stated that respondent no. 2 is working in CISF and presently posted in J & K, respondent no. 3 is a housewife and respondent no. 4 is studying in college. It is stated that revision petition is gross misuse to the process of law and there is no ambiguity in the impugned order and the present revision petition has been filed with the sole intention to harass the innocent respondents. It is stated that revisionist is a quarrelsome person and he remains always in fighting mode and has only intention to get the respondent no. 2 terminated from his service. It is stated that on 26.07.2015 the revisionist had made a false call at 100 number against the respondents CR No:440176/2016 Page 6 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 whereas at that time, the respondent no. 2 and 3 were in Base Hospital for the treatment of their son Sunil who had been suffering from Kidney problem. It is stated that revisionist is a habitual liar and his only intention is to harass the innocent respondents. It is stated that it was the respondent no. 2 who was beaten by the revisionist and revisionist had given him a threat for his termination from the service and thereafter the respondent no. 2 was forced to compromise the matter with the revisionist and infact he has been hit on the head by the revisionist and after compromising the matter with him, revisionist has cleverly filed the complaint and trapped all the respondents. It is stated that respondent no. 3 and 4 have been put in column no. 12 and have not been charge sheeted and hence there is no question of charging them or dropping charges against them. It is stated that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records.
10. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant (revisionist herein) has stated that on 12.07.2013 he was hit by accused Saroop Singh with an iron rod on his head and looking at the part of CR No:440176/2016 Page 7 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 the body on which injury was inflicted, the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has further contended that although in the MLC, it is mentioned that the revisionist had sustained simple nature of injuries but the revisionist was admitted in the hospital from 22.07.2013 to 02.08.2013 and could not follow his ordinary pursuits and was confined to bed and on that account the nature of injuries as sustained by the revisionist are grievous in nature in view of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied on the following decisions:
(i) Bade Lal Parshad & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Crl.
Revision P. No. 207/2010 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
(ii) Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. Hari Mohan Mandal, AIR 2004 SC 3687.
(iii) Samar Singh Puri Vs. The State, CR No. 129/2009 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
(iv) Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2003(4) MhLj 306 .
(v) Rajni Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors. ,
2014 (5) Scale 514.
(vi) Ajit Singh & Anr Vs. State, 2011 STPL (DJ) 1917
Delhi.
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 has contended that as per the nature of allegations and CR No:440176/2016 Page 8 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 the statements of witnesses and the MLC collected during the course of investigation, charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out and State has not preferred any revision petition against the impugned order and the State is satisfied with the impugned order whereby charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC has been framed against the accused(Respondent no. 2 herein).
12. Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has contended that respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 have not been summoned by the Ld. Trial Court and charge vide impugned order dated 17.04.2015 has only been framed against accused i.e. respondent no. 2 herein and in the circumstances, no relief can be prayed by the revisionist against respondent no. 3 and 4 by way of revision petition.
13. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has contended that revision petition is not maintainable as vide order dated 27.03.2015 the order on charge was announced by the Ld. Trial Court in which Ld. Trial Court observed that charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out out against the accused and vide impugned order dated 17.04.2015 only charge under Section 324 IPC was framed against the accused in CR No:440176/2016 Page 9 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 pursuance of order dated 27.03.2015 and the revisionist has not challenged the order dated 27.03.2015 and in the circumstances, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has further contended that perusal of documents and statements of witnesses on record would reveal that no charge is liable to be framed against accused (respondent no. 2 herein). Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has contended that along with the charge sheet, the investigating agency has filed the MLC of the injured prepared at Divya Prastha Hospital on 12.07.2013 and on the said MLC the opinion on the nature of injuries is given as simple and the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day i.e. on 12.07.2013 and the complainant had not made any complaint for registration of case as no case was made out against the accused. It is contended that rather in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Sh. Sunder Lal has stated that it is the revisionist (complainant) who had inflicted injury on the head of accused (respondent no. 2 herein) with iron rod and in order to save himself from the consequences of the causing injury to accused (respondent no. 2 herein), the complainant has filed the present false CR No:440176/2016 Page 10 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 case.
15. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has contended that the MLC dated 12.07.2013 of Divya Prastha Hospital on which reliance has been placed by the complainant does not mention that the injured (revisionist herein) was taken to the said hospital on account of any assault on him. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has contended that after sustaining of injury by accused (respondent no. 2 herein) on account of assault by the revisionist, the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) was forced to enter into the compromise by the revisionist and the same was recorded vide DD no. 4A dated 14.07.2013, PS Palam Village. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 has contended that this case is after thought and no report on 12.07.2013 was made by the revisionist to the police and the revision petition has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended in rebuttal that vide order dated 27.03.2015 Ld. Trial Court was pleased to announce order on charge whereby Ld. Trial Court was pleased to hold that prima facie charge for offence under Section 324 IPC is made out and Ld. Trial Court was CR No:440176/2016 Page 11 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 pleased to direct for framing of charge under Section 324 IPC against the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) on 17.04.2015.
17. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that even if he has not challenged the order dated 27.03.2015, still the revision petition is maintainable as the charge against the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) was framed by the impugned order dated 17.04.2015. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the decision in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 CRLJ 810 RAJ.
18. The case vide FIR no. 359/13 under Section 324/34IPC, PS Palam Village was registered on the basis of order dated 08.10.2013 passed by Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant ( revisionist herein). After conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet for offence under Section 324 IPC was filed against accused Saroop Singh(Respondent no. 2 herein) and the names of Smt. Raj Bala and Kumari Neetu have been mentioned in column No. 12 of the charge sheet as accused persons not charge sheeted.
19. Vide order dated 24.07.2014 the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) was ordered to be summoned by Ld. Trial Court.
CR No:440176/2016 Page 12 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16
20. The contention of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4 is that revision petition is not maintainable as the order dated 27.03.2015 in which Ld. MM was pleased to hold that charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out against the accused (respondent no. 2 herein) has not been challenged.
21. As per order dated 27.03.2015 Ld. Trial Court was pleased to hold that prima facie charge for offence under Section 324 IPC is made out against the accused(respondent no. 2 herein) and it was directed that charge for the said offence be framed against the accused on 17.04.2015. On 17.04.2015 charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC was farmed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Even if the complainant/revisionist has not challenged the order dated 27.03.2015 by which Ld. Trial Court was pleased to hold that prima facie charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out against the accused but the revision petition cannot be declined only on the ground that said order has not been challenged because vide impugned order dated 17.04.2015 charge for the offence under Section 324 IPC was framed against the accused and the court has to examine the legality the charge framed CR No:440176/2016 Page 13 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 against the accused on the basis of material placed on record.
22. Vide order dated 24.07.2014 Ld. MM was pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Section 324 IPC and was pleased to summon only accused Saroop Singh (respondent no. 2 herein). The accused persons namely Smt. Raj Bala and Kumari Neetu (respondent no. 3 and 4 herein) who have been mentioned in column no. 12 of the charge sheet as accused persons not charge sheeted have not been summoned by the Ld. Trial Court and impugned order is in respect of only Saroop Singh (respondent no. 2 herein). In the circumstances, no relief can be granted against accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 ( respondent no. 3 and 4 herein).
23. During the Course of investigation, the Investigating Agency has collected the MLC dated 12.07.2013 of injured prepared at Divya Prastha Hospital. As per MLC dated 12.07.2013 the injured ws taken to hospital on 12.07.2013 at 8:05 PM by Ct. Arvind Kumar of PCR and on the said MLC the nature of injury is mentioned as simple.
24. Along with the charge sheet, the discharge summary of the injured (revisionist herein) prepared at Divya Prastha Hospital has been filed as per which the injured was admitted in the said hospital on CR No:440176/2016 Page 14 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 12.07.2013 and was discharged on the same day and in the history of the present illness, it was mentioned that the injured Subhash Chander was "admitted with the complaint of at home sustained injury head".
25. Along with the charge sheet, one MLC of the injured (revisionist herein) prepared at BASE Hospital, Delhi Cantt-10 on 13.07.2013 has also been filed in which the injured has given history of assault by his neighbour and in the said MLC it is observed that the injured was taken to civil hospital where he was given stitches and vide this MLC injured was advised Review in general surgery-OPD after two days. Another discharge summary of injured prepared at Park Hospital has been filed as per which he was admitted in the said hospital on 22.07.2013 and was discharged on 02.08.2013.
26. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency has recorded statement of injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has made allegations that on 12.07.2013 accused Saroop Singh who is his neighbour was getting drain repaired from one Mason and he also fixed one brick in the drain and he (complainant) told the accused not to close the drain on which accused hit him on the head with iron rod. The investigating agency has CR No:440176/2016 Page 15 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 also recorded statement of Sh. Sunder Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that he is a labourer and on 12.07.2013 he was fixing the bricks in the sewer on the asking of Sh. Saroop Singh and in the mean time a person whose name was later on known as Subhash came and broke the bricks which were affixed by him and on asking by Saroop Singh as to why he (Complainant) has done the same, the said Sh. Subhash went to his house and brought one iron pipe and hit the same on the head of Saroop Singh.
27. Along with the charge sheet, a copy of DD no. 4A dated 14.07.2013 , PS Palam Village has also been filed as per which the call recorded vide DD no. 40A which was kept pending has been filed as both the parties have entered into compromise on 13.07.2013 and have given notarized affidavit in respect of the same. It is contended that the said affidavit dated 13.07.2013 signed by the complainant and respondent no. 2 has been placed in the file of complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which is tagged with the file of the charge sheet.
28. As per the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Sunder Lal who was doing work on the asking of accused Saroop Singh, it is Shri Subhash Chander (revisionist herein) who had inflicted injury on the head of the accused (respondent no. 2) with iron rod.
CR No:440176/2016 Page 16 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16
29. As per discharge summery dated 12.07.2013 prepared at Divya Parstha Hospital, the injured Subhash Chander was admitted in the said hospital with the "complaint of at home sustained injury head". As per MLC dated 12.07.2013 of the injured prepared at Divya Prastha hospital, the injured has sustained simple nature of injury.
30. In the affidavit dated 13.07.2013 which is signed by the complainant(revisionist herein) and accused (respondent no. 2 herein) & which is placed in the file of complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. titled as "Subhash Chander Vs. Sh. Saroop Singh & Ors.", it is stated that a quarrel took place between the parties on 12.07.2013 and they have settled their disputes amicably.
31. Section 240 Cr.P.C. reads as :
Framing of charge.- (1) if, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
CR No:440176/2016 Page 17 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, an he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
32. In CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao, CA No. 1460 of 2012 , Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:
12. While considering the very same provisions i.e. framing of charge and discharge of accused, again in Sajjan Kumar ( supra), this Court held thus:
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC 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. The test to determine prima face CR No:440176/2016 Page 18 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where 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.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basis infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the CR No:440176/2016 Page 19 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
CR No:440176/2016 Page 20 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16
33. In the order on charge dated 27.03.2015, Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to observe:
After going through the entire material on record and considering submissions made by both the counsels and Ld. Public Prosecutor, this court is of considered view that even if, the weapon of offence is not seized by the police but the fact that injuries received by the complainant show that same were caused from an object which resulted in bleeding and he received stitches also and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injuries were simple in nature, Prima facie the offence u/s 324 IPC is made out.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the charge sheet and the documents filed along with the same, the authorities as relied by the revisionist are of no help to him.
35. The scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123.
36. In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and CR No:440176/2016 Page 21 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 others (2015) 8 SCC 774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
11. First, we shall dwell upon the issue whether the High Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, should have adverted to the merits of the case in extenso. As the factual matrix would reveal, the learned Single Judge has dwelled upon in great detail on the statements of the witnesses to arrive at the conclusion that there are remarkable discrepancies with regard to the facts and there is nothing wrong with the investigation. In fact, he has noted certain facts and deduced certain conclusions, which, as we find, are beyond the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously.
Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. [see Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460].
CR No:440176/2016 Page 22 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16
37. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that:
14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable CR No:440176/2016 Page 23 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.
38. In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the finding of the court is not to be interfered unless the same is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
39. Looking at the nature of allegations as made in the charge sheet and the documents filed before Ld. Trial Court and in view of aforesaid pronouncements, I am of the view that judicial discretion has been exercised by Ld. Trial Court properly and in accordance with provisions of law. I CR No:440176/2016 Page 24 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018 Subhash Chander Vs. The State CR No: 440176/16 find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.04.2015. The revision petition is devoid of merits and same is dismissed. However, nothing mentioned herein shall tantamount to an expression on the merits of the case.
40. TCR be sent back to the court concerned along with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ( HARISH DUDANI) Court on 13.11.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-I Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Digitally signed HARISH by HARISH
DUDANI
DUDANI Date: 2018.11.13
15:53:39 +0530
CR No:440176/2016 Page 25 of 25 D.O.J. 13.11.2018