Delhi District Court
Sh. Shyam Manohar Bajaj vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 25 April, 2015
...1/-
IN THE COURT OF SH. R. B. SINGH ASJ-02 NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CR No. 19/14
Sh. Shyam Manohar Bajaj,
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Bajaj,
R/o BA-4, Third Floor,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
.......Revisionist
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) ....... Respondent
ORDER
By this order, I propose to dispose of this criminal revision petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 for framing the notice U/s 287/304-A IPC against the petitioner / revisionist dated 21.05.2014 in case entitled as State Vs. Sh. Shyam Mahohar Bajaj, FIR No.256/2011, P.S. Mahindra Park.
2. The brief facts of the disposal of the revision petition are as under:
The petitioner is carrying on his business in the name and style of M.B. Fasions, Second Floor, D-16, SMA Industrial Area, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, and is doing the business of readymade garments. The premises under occupation of the petitioner is a tenanted premises and is owned by Sh. Chander Mohan Agrawal. The petitioner has taken the premises on rent against a License Agreement which was signed and executed between the owner and the petitioner on 28.05.2010. Under the terms of the Agreement, maintenance of the lift is to be done by the CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 1 of 7 ...2/-
owner, though the petitioner had agreed to pay all necessary charges towards maintenance, electricity charges etc. for use of the left. As per the terms, the owner of the tenanted premises of the petitioner has obtained a license in his own name from the Chief Inspector (Lifts). Under the terms of the license granted to the owner, he is required to maintain the lift as per norms, to get the license renewed every year and to do all necessary repairs. The owner of the premises is to keep the lift in working condition. The owner has not got the license of the lift renewed and even did not maintain the lift as per the clauses of the license which caused incident and one of the employees of the petitioner lost his valuable life. Ld. Trial Court after hearing arguments of the counsel of the petitioner held that at the stage of framing of the notice by invoking the provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C and also U/s 239/240 Cr.P.C., the same is no stage of discharge and defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into and accordingly, notice was framed by the ld. Trial Court U/s 287/304-A IPC and fixed the next date for evidence of the prosecution. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been moved on the following grounds :
a) That the order of the ld. Trial Court is against the facts and law on the file. The orders are based on conjectures and surmises and are not supported with the valid, legal and admitted principles of law and as such, the orders are liable to be set-aside.
b) That the ld. Trial Court had neither perused the various documents filed by the prosecution nor the ld. Trial Court has considered various aspects, statement of witnesses and mechanically passed the CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 2 of 7 ...3/-
orders.
c) That the ld. Trial Court has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C. and also the provisions of Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240 Cr.P.C.
d) That the ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the documents advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of framing of notice by invoking Section 251 Cr.P.C., there is no stage of discharge irrespective of any fact and no right of the petitioner to contend his submissions and also proposition of law.
e) That the ld. Trial Court has wrongly held the proposition of law and blind boldly notice cannot be framed against the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled for discharge as neither there is a legal evidence against him nor on facts nor any document in making him guilty of the offence alleged against him and as such, no notice should have been framed against the petitioner U/s 251 Cr.P.C. and rather he was liable to be discharged from the provisions of Section 287/304-A IPC.
It is, therefore, prayed that this court may summon the record of the ld. Trial Court, perused the same and the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 and 21.05.2014 passed by the court of Ms. Shunali Gupta, ld. ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, may be set aside and the petitioner may be discharged.
3. On the contrary, ld Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits as the ld. Trial Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety.
CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 3 of 7...4/-
Hence, it is prayed that the present revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have heard arguments on behalf of revisionist and the ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the material on record carefully. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the following case laws :
i) Crl. M.C. No.757/2014 and Crl. M.A. Nos. 2541-42/ 2014 in the case entitled as Geeta Arya Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
ii) 2014(1) JCC 229 in case entitled as Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. Vs. Amit Sibal & Anr.
and I have perused the same also.
5. Before arriving at any conclusion it will be appropriate if the case law cited on behalf of the revisionist i.e. 2014(1) JCC 229 entitled as Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. Vs. Amit Sibal & Anr., is reproduced for ready reference and which is reproduced as under :
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sec. 251/482 r/w 483 and Art. 227 of the Constitution - Summons cases - Framing of notice - The accused are entitled to hearing before the ld. MM at the stage of framing of notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. in all summons cases arising out of complaints and the Magistrate has to frame the notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused - However, in the event of the ld. Magistrate not finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge / drop the proceedings against the accused - Since there is no express provision or prohibition in this regard in the Code of Criminal Procedure, these directions are being issued in exercise of power under Sec. 482 r/w CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 4 of 7 ...5/-
Sec. 483 Cr.P.C. and Art. 227 of the Constitution to secure the ends of justice; to avoid needless multiplicity of procedures, unnecessary delay in trial/ protraction of proceedings; to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions - The petitioners are permitted to urge the pleas raised in this petition before the ld. MM at the stage of framing of notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. whereupon the ld. MM shall consider them and pass a speaking order - The ld. Magistrate shall frame the notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners - The ld. Magistrate shall be empowered to discharge / drop the proceedings against the petitioners if no case is made out against them - If the ld. Magistrate chooses to frame notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C., the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedies as available in law.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 -
Sec. 251/482 r/w 483 and Art. 227 of the Constitution - Discharge under - Power of the Trial Court to discharge the accused at the stage of notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. - Is based not only on sound logic but also on a fundamental principle of justice as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to face trial .....
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Sec.251 - Discharge to the accused in summons cases at the stage of notice under Sec. 251 - If the Trial Court has to frame the notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. where no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the hearing at the stage of notice under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. would be a mere farce and would result in failure of justice - Denial of the remedy of discharge to the accused in summons cases at the stage of CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 5 of 7 ...6/-
notice under Sec. 251 Cr. P.C. is clearly discriminatory".
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.757/2014 and Crl. M.A. Nos. 2541-42/2014 in the case entitled as Geeta Arya Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. has also held as under :
"It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code".
6. The operative part of the order dated 04.03.2014 of the ld. Trial Court is as follows :
"Viewing from the perspective of the entire scheme of Cr.P.C., in reference to summons triable cases, taking of cognizance followed by summoning order and putting the accusations in the form of notice is a one unified integrated process. There is no stage of discharge and as a consequence, no right of the accused to contend his submissions."
7. After hearing arguments and on perusal of the material on record and more particularly perusal of the case law of our own Hon'ble CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 6 of 7 ...7/-
High Court, this court is of the considered opinion that the orders of the ld. Trial Court dated 04.03.2014 & 21.05.2014 are liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to hear the arguments on the behalf of the accused on the point of notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. afresh and pass a fresh detailed and speaking order in this case. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 04.03.2014 and 21.05.2014 are set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the ld. Trial Court of Ms. Shunali Gupta, ld. ACMM(North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, for hearing the arguments afresh on the point of notice and for passing a detailed and speaking order in this case. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
8. A copy of this order alongwith the ld. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld Trial Court on 05.05.2015 at 2.00 PM through office of ld. CMM, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi for necessary information and compliance. The revisionist and his counsel is directed to appear before the Ld Trial Court on 05.05.2015 at 2.00 PM. Ahlmad of this court to send the file forthwith.
9. The revision petition file be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open court ( R. B. SINGH )
Dated: 25.04.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-02(North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi/ 25.04.2015
CR No.19/14 Shyam Manohar Bajaj Vs. State Page 7 of 7