Delhi District Court
Cr No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar vs . State. on 11 February, 2014
CR No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar Vs. State.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Criminal Revision No. 172/2013.
Lachman Dass Thakkar,
S/o Sh. Vasdev,
R/o Ward No. 8, Basant Vihar,
Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat,
Haryana. ... Revisionist.
Vs.
The State. ... Respondent.
Date of Institution. : 31.10.2013. Arguments Advanced On. : 11.2.2014. Date of Order. : 11.2.2014. 11.2.2014. Present: Sh. Dev Raj Chhabra, ld. counsel for revisionist (one
of the accused before the ld. Trial Court). Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State/ respondent.
Arguments on the present criminal revision petition, heard.
Perused the entire record, including TCR, carefully. Page No. 1. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar Vs. State.
:: ORDER ::
1. The challenge in the present revision petition u/s 397 r/w/s 399 CrPC, filed by the revisionist, is to the impugned order dated 1.8.2013 of Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sirohi, ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "State Vs. Balbir & Another", FIR No. 178/10, u/s 279/304A/465/468/34 IPC of PS Najafgarh, whereby the ld. Trial Court had framed the charge for the offences u/s 465/34 IPC and u/s 468/34 IPC, against the revisionist.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision petition are that a case u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against the main accused Balbir, for causing death of the victim in road accident by rash and negligent driving on 23.4.2010 at 2.45 pm, Near Nand Vatika, Dichau Kalan, Najafgarh Road. However, it is further the case of the prosecution that the driving license of the said accused marked "X" was found to be forged during investigation after verifying the same from the concerned Transport Authority and on the disclosure statement of the main accused Balbir, coaccused (revisionist herein) was arrested for the offences u/s 465/468/34 IPC, for having got prepared the forged driving license of the main accused Balbir from concerned Transport Authority. Vide impugned order dated 1.8.2013, charges for the offences Page No. 2. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar Vs. State.
u/s 279/304A/471 IPC and u/s 465/34 IPC and u/s 468/34 IPC, were also framed against the main accused Balbir.
3. During the course of arguments ld. counsel for revisionist has strongly contended that no admissible material against this revisionist has been brought on record by the investigating agency to show that the revisionist had any role in getting prepared the forged driving license of main accused Balbir. He has also submitted that there is neither any independent prosecution witness nor any other material to show that this revisionist had helped in any way in getting the forged driving license of the main accused Balbir prepared. He has further submitted that the disclosure statements of revisionist as well as of the main accused Balbir, given in custody to police, mentioning that the revisionist was instrumental in getting the forged driving license of main accused, is no value being statements given to the police and further that no discovery of any new fact pursuant to the said disclosure statement of this revisionist, has been brought on record. He has further submitted that the disclosure statement of the main accused Balbir given to the police incriminating this revisionist, has no evidentiary value. He has further contended that even if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, there is not even a Page No. 3. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar Vs. State.
remote possibility of conviction of this revisionist, as no admissible incriminating material has been brought on record against this revisionist. He has lastly submitted that continuing further with the trial against this revisionist, would be an exercise in futile. Resultantly, he has prayed that the impugned order of framing of charge against the revisionist may be set aside and the revision petition may be allowed and the revisionist may be discharged.
4. Ld. Addl. PP for State has fairly conceded that there is no admissible material against the revisionist available on record of the ld. Trial Court, for framing of charges for the aforesaid offences.
5. There is no admissible material available on record against the revisionist that he was instrumental in any way in getting the forged driving license prepared of the main accused Balbir. Also, there is no independent prosecution witness or any other material, which may connect this revisionist, with having made efforts for procuring or arranging the forged driving license of the main accused Balbir. Further, the disclosure statements of this revisionist as well as main accused Balbir, to the effect that this revisionist had got prepared forged driving license of main accused Balbir, has no evidentiary value, Page No. 4. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar Vs. State.
as no discovery of new fact pursuant to the said disclosure statement of this revisionist, has been brought on record of the ld. Trial Court. Also, even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value, there is not even a remote possibility of conviction of this revisionist. It is settled law that for framing of charge, there should be strong suspicion or prima facie case exists against an accused. However, in this case there is no material from which any strong suspicion may arise that this revisionist had anything to do with the alleged preparation and possession of forged driving license of the main accused Balbir. Further, it is well settled that charge cannot be framed against an accused on a slight suspicion. Since there was no material available on record before the ld. Trial Court, for framing of charge for the aforesaid offences against this revisionist, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court qua this revisionist suffers from illegality and the same is not tenable. Consequently, the impugned order of framing of charge against this revisionist, is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. Resultantly, the revisionist (one of the accused before the ld. Trial Court) is discharged.
6. The revisionist (one of the accused before the ld. Trial Court) stands discharged for the offences u/s 465/34 IPC Page No. 5. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 172/13. Lachman Dass Thakkar Vs. State.
and u/s 468/34 IPC. His bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged.
7. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent to the ld. Trial Court, for 18.2.2014 at 2.00 pm, for information and further proceedings, as per law.
8. Revision petition file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 11.2.2014.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 6. Contd... ... ...