Delhi District Court
Kuldeep Kumar Gupta vs State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 11 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No.41/16
ID No. 02406R0062872016
Kuldeep Kumar Gupta
S/o Shri C.L.Gupta
R/o G43, 2nd Floor, Bali Nagar,
New Delhi
. . . . Revisionist
Through: Shri Nishant Srivastava,
Advocate
versus
State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent
Through: Sh. M. Zafar Khan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 16.02.2016
Date when arguments were heard : 26.04.2016
Date of Judgment : 11.05.2016
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397/399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") is to the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short "MM")08, SouthEast CR No.41/16 1 of 8 District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case FIR No.84/10 titled as State Vs. Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, Police StationAmar Colony.
2. A case FIR No.420/07 dated 02.08.07 under section 279/337 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") was registered against revisionist Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, wherein he was found driving a Maruti Esteem in a rash and negligent manner. In the said case, revisionist Kuldeep Kumar Gupta had produced DL No.7734/AG/04 issued from Agra, U.P. The license produced by the offending driver was later verified by the officer of National Insurance Company and the same was found forged as per report received from the office of DCP/Crime and Railways, Delhi dated 10.02.10. The trial of the aforementioned case was concluded on 23.11.09. Therefore, on the basis of report of Insurance Company and circumstances of the case, FIR No.84/10 under section 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered.
3. Matter was investigated as per law. Revisionist was found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, on conclusion of investigation, revisionist was charge sheeted to face trial for offence under section 420/471 IPC.
4. Prima facie, sufficient material was found to charge against revisionist for offence under section 420/471 IPC. Therefore, vide order dated 26.06.15, learned MM directed for framing of charge CR No.41/16 2 of 8 for the aforesaid offences against the revisionist. On 20.11.15, charge for offence under section 420/471 IPC was framed against revisionist to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Revisionist, feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 20.11.15 passed by learned MM, has preferred the present petition.
6. On notice, respondent appeared through Additional Public Prosecutor to contest the petition. No formal reply to the petition of revisionist has been filed by the respondent.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by Shri Nishant Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist and Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional PP for State.
8. It was submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that the impugned order passed by learned MM is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the said order has been passed in mechanical manner and same is incorrect, unjust and bad in law. He further submitted that learned MM passed the order without applying the judicial mind and without considering the circumstances of the case and without looking into the otherwise apparent documents particularly Registration Verification Report of the IO dated 20.11.14. He further submitted that no offence under section 420 IPC is made out against revisionist and CR No.41/16 3 of 8 therefore, charge for the said offence framed against revisionist is unsustainable. He further submitted that the alleged production of D/L by the revisionist which was not found genuine was without any criminal intention or knowledge and there is nothing on record to suggest that revisionist was having an iota of knowledge or intention that the said D/L was not genuine. He further submitted that revisionist has neither cheated nor deceived any one nor used as genuine the forged document. Thus, he prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by learned MM.
9. Per contra, it was submitted by learned Additional PP for State that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned MM. He further submitted that learned MM on consideration of material available on record, rightly framed charge against revisionist under section 420/471 IPC. He submitted that there is no merit in the petition preferred by revisionist and prayed for dismissing the same.
10. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record.
11. Trial Court record shows that the Investigating Officer on conclusion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the revisionist for offence punishable under Section 420/471 IPC. Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C deals with the Trial of Warrant Cases by CR No.41/16 4 of 8 Magistrates. The provisions contained in Section 239 and section 240 Cr.P.C. are relevant for deciding the matter in issue in this case. They are reproduced here under for ready reference: "239. When accused shall be discharged - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
240. 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.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried".
12. A bare look at the aforesaid provisions of law shows that at CR No.41/16 5 of 8 the time of consideration on the point of charge, the Magistrate is required to look into the police report and the documents send alongwith it. No other documents are to be considered at this stage. Accused is given opportunity of being heard at the point of charge. The documents submitted by accused if any, is not to be considered at this stage.
13. It was held in Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Delhi, 2010 (I) C. C. Cases (HC) 337 that the Court is not required to see the probative value of different material, which had been filed alongwith the charge sheet at the time of framing of charge. Court at the time of framing of charge is not expected to do meticulous dissection or evaluation of evidence produced by prosecution.
14. In State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, JT 2004 (10), SC 303, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, roving and fishing enquiry is impermissible. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and the documents submitted there with and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of CR No.41/16 6 of 8 charge, hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.
15. In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that revisionist produced D/L No.7734/AG/04 issued from Agra, U.P. before the IO during the course of investigation in case FIR No.420/07 under section 279/337 IPC Police Station Sri Niwas Puri. As per report received from the office of DCP Crime and Railways, Delhi dated 10.02.10, the D/L produced by revisionist was found to be forged on verification. The Licensing Authority vide letter dated 06.03.10 confirmed that DL No.7734/AG/04 dated 01.05.04 was issued to one Kishan s/o Satpal Singh and not to revisionist. The revisionist by producing a forged D/L to a public servant i.e. IO of case FIR No.420/07 PS Sriniwas Puri deceived him by inducing him to believe that the D/L was genuine. Thus, the revisionist prima facie committed the offence punishable under section 420/471 IPC.
16. The plea of revisionist that he had no knowledge that the D/L was forged is his defence. He can prove his defence at appropriate stage during the course of trial. It is an admitted fact that the D/L produced by revisionist in case FIR No.420/07 was found to be forged. The D/L was produced by none other than revisionist himself. He used the forged D/L as genuine in the said CR No.41/16 7 of 8 case. The act or omission is also covered within the definition of cheating as defined under section 415 IPC. Dishonest concealment of facts is also deception within the meaning of section 415 IPC. The revisionist cheated the IO of case FIR No. 420/07 by making him to believe that the D/L produced by him was genuine.
17. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.11.15 passed by learned MM, whereby charge against revisionist was framed. The charge against revisionist has rightly been framed on the basis of material produced by the prosecution i.e. police report and the documents submitted alongwith it. Revision petition preferred by revisionist has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
18. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 11.05.2016 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No.41/16 8 of 8