Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State on 23 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 56098/16
IN THE MATTER OF :
1 Rakesh Kumar
S/o Lt. Sh. Rati Ram,
R/o C346/36, Chandan Vihar,
Nangloi Delhi110041.
2 Nandan Lal,
S/o Sh. Mandu Ram,
R/o H. No. 386, Ambika Enclave,
Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi110041.
............PETITIONERS
versus
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
........RESPONDENT
DATE OF FILING : 06.01.2016
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 23.01.2017
DATE OF ORDER : 23.01.2017
CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 1/7
O R D E R
1 This is a revision petition filed by above mentioned
petitioners against the impugned Order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Ld. MM thereby framing of charge u/s 420/448/468/471/34 IPC against the petitioners.
2 The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that FIR No. 07/11 P.S. Nihal Vihar u/s 420/468/471 IPC was registered on the complaint of complainant Mr. Kulvinder Singh with allegations that accused person namely Rakesh, Nand Lal (petitioners herein) and accused Devender Sharma in furtherance of their common intention cheated the complainant after preparing forged documents in respect of H. No. 23A (25 sq. yards), Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Rakesh. Subsequently, one supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Nand Lal. Vide order dt. 23.09.2015, the ld. trial court framed charge u/s 420/448/468/471/34 IPC against the petitioners.
3 By way of present petition, it is contended on behalf of the CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 2/7 petitioners that the impugned Order is liable to be setaside as the said order is bad in law and not sustainable. Further that the trial court has not considered the material facts involved in the case. Further that no case for the offence as per charge framed against the petitioners, is made out against the petitioners. Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that the case in hand is of civil nature and a civil suit is pending before the civil court. Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that the complainant is not the owner of the property in question. Alongwith certain other contention, it is submitted that the petitioners be discharged.
4 On the other hand, the petition is opposed on behalf of State and it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that impugned order does not require any interference as same has been passed as per law.
5 I have carefully perused the record including the trial court record in the light of submissions made before me.
6 The perusal of impugned order revels that the Ld. Trial court while passing the impugned order dt. 23.09.2015 has considered the material available on record and recorded its satisfaction regarding a CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 3/7 primafacie case against the petitioners before framing of charges. The ld. Trial court while passing the impugned order has observed that accused Rakesh Kumar had sold the same property to two different people, therefore, he has certainly committed offences of forgery and cheating in this matter. It is further observed by ld. Trial court that accused Nand Lal was not handed over chain of original documents at the time of sale, therefore, there is primafacie case that he is also involved with Rakesh Kumar in this matter. It is further observed by ld. Trial court that since the complainant has alleged that he was in possession of the plot in question, therefore, offence punishable u/s 448 IPC would also be attracted in this matter. With above observations, ld. Trial court framed charge u/s 420/448/467/471/34 IPC against the accused persons.
7 At the time of framing of charge only a primafacie view is to be made regarding the ingredients of the alleged offences and a roving inquiry is not required. In this regard, the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Sushil Ansal Vs. State cited as 2002 CRI L.J 1369 (DHC) are reproduced as follows :
"The principles that emerge governing orders under Ss. 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C are that only those cases where a judge is almost certain that CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 4/7 there is no prospect of the case ending in a conviction, and is of the view that the time of the Court need not be wasted by holding a trial, an order of discharge may be passed under S. 227 of the Code. However, in case there is a strong suspicion, founded upon some material available on record, which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the commission of the offence by an accused, the framing of the charge would be warranted . No detailed or elaborate enquiry is required to be undertaken at this stage by delving deep into various aspects of the matter to find out as to whether an accused can be held guilty or not. Probable defence of an accused is not to be looked into nor the probative value of the material on record has to be examined. In nut shell an order of discharge under S.227 of the Code would be warranted only in those cases where the Court is satisfied that there are no chances of conviction of an accused and the trial would be an exercise in futility."
Furthermore, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Union of India Vs. Praffula Kumar, 1979, CRI L.J 154 (SC) in this regard is reproduced as below :
"The judge while considering the questions of framing the charge u/s 227 of the Code has the CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 5/7 undoubted power of 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. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been property explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial."
8 If the material available on record, particularly the material collected by the IO during investigation is analyzed in light of provisions of Indian Panel Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the different judgments passed by the superior courts in forms of guidelines for the stage of framing of charge, I reach at a conclusion that the ld. trial court has rightly framed charges u/s 420/448/468/471/34 IPC against the petitioners.
9 A careful perusal of the record in general and the impugned Order in particular, it reveals that the petitioners have not been able to show any reasonable ground for interfering with the impugned Order. Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned Order dated 23.09.2015, has taken into consideration all the relevant facts. It is well settled law that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 6/7 exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. If the impugned order is analyzed in light of the scope of section 397/399 Cr.P.C, no wrong, illegality, impropriety or irregularity is noticed therein.
In view of above discussion, the revision petition is found to be time barred as well as devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.
TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order.
File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL)
rd
TODAY i.e. On 23 January, 2017 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI
23.01.2017
CR No. 56098/16 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs. State PAGE No. 7/7