Delhi District Court
Amarjeet Kaur vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 23 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 139/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-010296-2021
Suryakant Sharma
S/o Late Manohar Lal Sharma
R/o Khasra No. 295/270, 2nd Floor,
Gali No. 10, A-2 Block, Himgiri Enclave,
Burari, Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 141/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-010297-2021
Anita Sharma
W/o Sh. Suryakant Sharma
R/o Khasra No. 295/270, 2nd Floor,
Gali No. 10, A-2 Block, Himgiri Enclave,
Burari, Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 142/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-010298-2021
Manjeet Singh
S/o Late Santokh Singh
R/o Khasra No. 295/270, 1st Floor,
Gali No. 10, A-2 Block, Himgiri Enclave,
Burari, Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 140/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-010299-2021
Amarjeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Manjeet Singh
R/o Khasra No. 295/270, 1st Floor,
Gali No. 10, A-2 Block, Himgiri Enclave,
Burari, Delhi
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 1 of 28
Date of Institution : 18.08.2021
Date of Arguments : 24.09.2021
Date of Judgement : 23.12.2021
JUDGEMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. The criminal revision petitions under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') are directed against order dated 22.03.2021 (the impugned order) arising from FIR No. 572/2018 under Section 379/506 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC') registered at PS Burari whereby Ld. MM-09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') framed charges under Section 506/427/34 IPC against the petitioners. FACTS:
2. On 24.11.2017, Smt. Kiran Bala Sahay (Hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') lodged a complaint with PS Burari, vide DD No. 45, against the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his neighbour that they helped a tenant qua mezzanine floor of her building to steal her TATA Sky Set Top Box Umbrella while vacating his flat after 11.00 p.m. on 22.11.2017. In the said complaint, the complainant stated that she and her two daughters are Advocates and practicing law in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Her husband is receiving treatment from AIIMS. She is residing on 1 st Floor of H. No. 91, A-2 Block, Himgiri Enclave, Burari, Delhi-110084 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the building').
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 2 of 28
3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma is residing on 2 nd Floor of the building. He is offending his dignity and reputation in order to grab her flat. When she occupied her flat, the building had one guard. However, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma removed him. He started collecting parking charges from outsiders for parking their vehicles in the parking space of the building. He also charged amount for allowing the parking space of the building for performing religious functions. The complainant raised objection and stopped the said activities.
For that reason, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma knocked at her door in the night and threatened her that the complainant does not deserve to reside in the colony and she must sell her flat or follow his command and otherwise, it would be harmful for her. At that time, the complainant and the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma were the only persons who had purchased flats and residing in the building.
4. The building has 8 flats. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma is representing himself as president of the building. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his neighbour helped a tenant qua mezzanine floor of the building to steal her TATA Sky Set Top Box Umbrella while he vacated his flats after 11.00 p.m. on 22.11.2017 in order to instill fear in the complainant and her family.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 3 of 28
5. According to the complainant, the building has a common car parking. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma has always created trouble in parking of her car. He parked his bike in the middle of the parking in oblique position to prevent her from parking her car. If somehow, the complainant succeeded in parking her car, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma scratched her car. He locked the car parking gate from inside and outside just to prevent the complainant from parking her car.
6. In the complaint, the complainant further stated that one day, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma alongwith her neighbour knocked her door at 10.30 a.m. and given abuses without any cause. At that time, her neighbour was under the influence of alcohol and when she raised objection, they threatened to kill her and further that they will throw her out from the building. Since then, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and her neighbour encroached half portion of car parking space by placing their household objects there and locked the main gate of the building and prevented the complainant and her family to make use of the said parking space. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma broken her electric meter wire fixed in the common space. He also broken her water pipe and in that regard, she made an oral complaint to local police on 23.09.2017 and after interference of police, the said water pipe could be repaired.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 4 of 28
7. According to the complainant, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his son moved around with hooligans and threatened them that they should not interfere in collection from parking space and otherwise, they will ruin her life and damage her property. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma instigated other flat holders to place their flower pots in the staircase to block her way and water flower pots and for that reason, there is fear of slipping. When the complainant requested the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and her neighbour to keep the said flower pots inside their flats and they used abusive words against her. On the basis of said allegations, the complainant requested the police to initiate legal proceeding against the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his son.
8. On 28.12.2017, the complainant made a complaint to DCP (North), Civil Lines, Delhi seeking direction to local police to take action against the petitioners. In the said complaint, she stated that on 23.09.2017, she informed SHO, PS Burari regarding damage caused to her water pipe. She stated that on 23.11.2017, she had informed local police that TATA Sky Set Top Box was stolen by a tenant with the help of the petitioners who vacated his flat in the mid night. She alleged that on 20.12.2017, her daughters came down stair on hearing sound of a hammer where the petitioners were present in the parking space with a crowd. The petitioners, namely, Suryakant Sharma and Anita Sharma stated that they will kill all of us.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 5 of 28
9. On seeing the said situation, the complainant's daughters came running in the flat and locked the door. The builder and property dealer reached her flat and stated that the complainant put lock without permission of the petitioners, namely, Suryakant Sharma and Anita Sharma. The complainant stated that the lock was lost and she placed lock as her car is also parked in the car parking. Thereafter, the property dealer and builder brought 4 locks with keys and asked them to come down and change lock.
10. According to the complainant, on the assurance of the property dealer and builder, she went down stair and the petitioners shouted at her and threatened to kill them. At this, the said builder and property dealer went from there and the complainant could manage to reach her flat with the help of 2-3 persons. Thereafter, local police reached and the complainant had shown audio pertaining to the said incident. On 27.12.2017, the petitioners again knocked her door and threatened that the complainant must pay the amount as demanded by them. Otherwise, they will be sent in the sky.
11. On 01.10.2018, the trial Court directed registration of FIR on the application of the complainant under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
12. On 09.12.2018, FIR No. 572/2018 was registered under Section 379/506 IPC at PS Burari.
13. After investigation, the petitioners were charge- sheeted for committing offences under Section 506/427/34 IPC.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 6 of 28
14. SI Yogendra Kumar investigated the case. According to charge-sheet, the complainant stated that her TATA Sky Set Top Box Umbrella was not stolen and it is still with her. The complainant had stated that one tenant, namely, Praveen Kumar removed the said TATA Sky Set Top Box Umbrella inadvertently from the roof of the building as he was under the impression that it belonged to him. Thereafter, he returned TATA Sky Set Top Box Umbrella to the complainant and taken his TATA Sky Set Top Box Umbrella from the roof of the building. The charge-sheet states that during investigation from the complainant and her neighbours, it was found that no one had threatened the complainant and she made false allegations against the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his neighbours. However, the petitioners threatened to kill the complainant and scratched her vehicle and damaged sewer pipe and therefore, the petitioners committed an offence under Section 506/427/34 IPC.
THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
15. The relevant part of the impugned order is as under:
"From the perusal of the entire record and after hearing the arguments, I am of the considered opinion that charge u/s 506/427/34 is made out against the accused persons.
Charge is separately framed. The same is read and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language to which the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 7 of 28
16. The impugned charge is as under:
"I, Neha Gupta Singh, M.M., New Delhi do hereby charge you (1) Suryakant Sharma S/o Shri Manohar Lal Sharma (2) Anita Sharma W/o Sh. Suryakant Sharma (3) Amarjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Manjeet Singh (4) Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Santosh Singh as under:
That on unknown date and also 23.09.2017 at time unknown you accused persons caused scratch vehicle (gaadi) and caused damaged to the sewerage pipe belonging to the complainant and also threatened him to kill and thereby you committed offences punishable u/s 506/427/34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried for the above said offence by this Court."
GROUNDS OF REVISION:
17. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i) The impugned order is a non-speaking order;
(ii) There is no specific role or allegation against the petitioners;
(iii) The trial Court has not appreciated the material available on record while framing charges;
(iv) The impugned charge does not give clear, precise and unambiguous information of the accusations;
(v) There is no corroborative material to substantiate the impugned charge;
(vi) The complaints and the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. would indicate that the complainant was not under threat, alarm or pressure;
(vii) The allegations made by the complainant are bald and vague:
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 8 of 28
(viii) The complainant did not mention in her complaints or statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. regarding damage to any sewage pipe;
(ix) There is no corroborating material to show damage to any property;
(x) The complainant did not mention that any threat was extended by the petitioners on 23.09.2017;
(xi) IO did not record statement of any neighbour.
Though he stated in the police report that during investigation, the neighbours of the petitioners and the complainant stated that no one had threatened the complainant and she has made false allegation against Suryakant Sharma and his neighbours;
(xii) There is no common intention or individual intention to commit any of the alleged offence;
(xiii) The complainant did not make any complaint immediately on the date of incident or thereafter and the complaint was made after considerable delay; and
(xiv) The trial Court did not consider that the complainant had not made any call at 100, there is no independent witness, there is no photograph of the damaged pipe or scratched vehicle or any particular of the vehicle which was allegedly scratched."
APPEARANCE:
18. I have heard Mr. Anshuman Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent and the complainant and carefully examined the trial Court record and case law filed by the petitioners. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
19. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is a cryptic order as the trial Court has not passed a reasoned order while directing framing of charge.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 9 of 28
20. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant has not made any specific allegation or ascribed specific role of any of the petitioners. He contended that the charge does not mention the time and place of commission of offences under Section 506/34 IPC and 427/34 IPC. He contended that the impugned charge is against the mandatory provision of Section 212 of the Cr.P.C. He relied upon the judgement in Main Pal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 3292. He contended that the trial Court has not considered the material on its file while framing charges against the petitioners. He contended that the impugned charge is against basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that charge must give clear, precise and unambiguous notice of the accusations against the petitioners. He contended that in the absence of such notice of the accusations, the petitioners will not be able to prepare their defence. He contended that the impugned charge is vague. He contended that the complainant herself is committing nuisance and taking law and order in her hand. He contended that on careful reading of the complaint and statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it is evident that the complainant was not under threat, alarm or pressure. He contended that there is no corroborating evidence to show damage of sewer pipe. He contended that the complainant has not made any allegation, in her complaint or statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., regarding damage to sewer pipe by the petitioners.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 10 of 28
21. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant did not state, in her complaint, that on 23.09.2017, the petitioners had given any threat to the complainant. He contended that Investigation Officer did not record statement of the neighbours despite making observation in the charge-sheet that the neighbours stated that the complainant made false allegation against the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his neighbours. He contended that there is no police complaint either on the date of incident or immediately thereafter. He contended that the complaint filed on 24.11.2017 was vitiated by inordinate delay. He contended that there is no sketch of the place of incident. He contended that there is no independent witness. He contended that there is no photograph of damaged pipe or scratched vehicle. He contended that there is no particular of any vehicle which was allegedly scratched by the petitioners. He contended that there is no evidence regarding repair of the alleged broken pipe. He contended that the impugned charge is based on false and bald allegations. He relied on judgement in Hari Kishan Sharma vs. State & Anr., Crl. M.C. 692/2014 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.09.2018. He contended that the allegations made by the complainant, in her complaints and statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., if taken on its face value, they do not disclose commission of any offence. He contended that IO, initially, reported that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. He prayed for discharged.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 11 of 28 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
22. Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or any error of law justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power. He contended that the trial Court is not required to pass a reasoned order while framing the charge. He contended that the contents of the charge are the reasons impelling the Court to frame the charge against the petitioners. He contended that if the trial Court has not mentioned the time and place of incident in the charge, such defect can be rectified by the trial Court. He contended that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT:
23. The complainant is an advocate practicing in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. She argued her case. She contended that the allegations made in the complaints dated 24.11.2017 and 28.12.2017 are specific, clear and precise. She contended that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and other petitioners threatened to kill her and her family members.
She contended that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma was keeping grudge against her as she did not allow the parkign space to be used for parking of vehicles of the outsiders and for religious functions. She contended that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma was charging amount from the use of parking space and for that reason, he had removed the security guard.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 12 of 28
24. The complainant contended that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma is not allowing her to use the parking space and scratched her car and also locked gate of the parking. She contended that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and Manjeet Singh knocked at her door in the night at 10.30 p.m. in inebriated condition and threatened to kill her and her family members. She contended that the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma broken electric meter wire fixed in the common space and also broken water pipe and in that regard, she made a complaint on 23.09.2017. She contended that on 20.12.2017, the petitioners used abusive language against her daughters and threatened to kill them. She contended that the petitioners even threatened to kill her. She contended that she alongwith her family members are residing in her flat in the building in the state of fear. She contended that she will prove the allegations made by her in the complaints during the trial. She contended that this Court cannot interfere in the charge framed by the trial Court. She contended that the trial Court rightly framed the charges on the basis of the material before it and there is no infirmity in the impugned charge.
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
25. The trial Court passed the impugned order on the ground that after perusing the entire record and hearing arguments, it was of the considered opinion that charge under Section 506/427/34 IPC is made out against the petitioners.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 13 of 28 WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUIERD TO PASS A REASONED ORDER FOR FRAMING CHARGE?
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order as it does not contain any reason.
27. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of W.B., (2000) 1 SCC 722, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"8. We wish to point out that if the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. Chapter XIX deals with provisions for trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report. Section 239 reads thus:
"239. When accused shall be discharged.- (1) 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."
9. The said section shows that the Magistrate is obliged to record his reasons if he decides to discharge the accused. The next section (Section
420) reads thus:
"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 Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 14 of 28 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."
10. It is pertinent to note that this section required a Magistrate to record his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement if he forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence which he is competent to try. In such a situation he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused."
28. It is, therefore, evident that the trial Court considered the charge-sheet, complaints and statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and satisfied herself as to the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioners. There is no legal requirement that the trial Court should specify the reasons as to why it opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is a prima facie order that the trial Court has formed opinion, on considering the charge-sheet and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the petitioners have committed the said offences. In such a situation, the trial Court is only required to frame a charge in writing against the petitioners.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER AT THE STAGE OF CHARGE?
29. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of the scope of exercise by a revisional Court in an order directing framing of charge.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 15 of 28
30. In Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."
31. Revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. Revisional power cannot be equated to appellate power. A revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial Court or the appellate Court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on its face value and accepted in their entirety without being subjected to cross- examination do not constitute the offence with which the petitioners are charged. Revisional power is a correctional power. It is not in the nature of appellate powers. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 16 of 28
32. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant did not allege any specific role against the petitioners. He contended that the charge-sheet and the documents even if they are taken on its face value, they do not constitute any offence. He contended that there is no corroborating evidence to support damage of sewer pipe or scratching of vehicle. He contended that there is no photograph of the broken pipe or the scratched vehicle.
33. Before considering his contentions, it would be appropriate to consider the meaning of expression 'ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence'.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'GROUND FOR PRESUMING THAT THE ACCUSED HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE'?
34. In Pallavi vs. State (UT of Chandigarh) & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 206, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"6. When the Judicial Magistrate has, based on the charge-sheet and on the materials filed along with the charge-sheet, satisfied himself, order of framing of charge against Respondents 2 and 3. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is concerned only with the aspect that there are prima facie materials presuming that the accused has committed the offence. At the initial stage the court is not called upon to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials produced by the prosecution and also to examine whether the same are sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused thereon. The learned Sessions Judge, in our view ought not to have gone into the merits of the materials and erred in setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate framing charge against the accused."
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 17 of 28
35. At the stage of consideration of the charge-sheet for the purpose of framing of charge, the trial Court is not required to examine the sufficiency of the material or whether the material is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The ground for presuming mean that the material placed before the trial Court in the form the charge-sheet and the documents give rise to a grave suspicion against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground that the Investigating Officer did not collect corroborating evidence or examined the neighbours or the complainant did not report the matter immediately to the police. The delay in reporting of incident to the police cannot be a ground to doubt the credibility of the allegations made by the complainant at this stage.
36. The legal standard for scope of examination of the material at the stage of framing of charge is well-settled.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL AT THE STAGE OF FRAMING OF CHARGE?
37. In State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 239, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"7. In the backdrop of the factual position discussed above, the question formulated earlier arises for our consideration. The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons.....
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 18 of 28
10. In a recent decision in State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari
- this Court, adverting to the question of quashing of charges in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 227 and 288, 401 and 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. did not favour the approach of the High Court in meticulously examining the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that the charge could not have been framed for a particular offence. This Court, while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the High Court, made the following observations:
"After considering the material on record, learned Sessions Judge framed the charge as stated above. That charge is quashed by the High Court against the respondents by accepting the contention raised and considering the details of the material produced on record. The same is challenged by filing these appeals.
In our view, it is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial."
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 19 of 28
38. In M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India enumerated legal principles applicable to an application seeking discharge, as under:
"17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgement which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 and discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The Court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 20 of 28 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused."
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
39. On examination of charge-sheet and complaints, it is evident that the genesis of incident lies in the use of parking space of the building. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma was allowing the parking space of the building for parking of vehicles of the outsiders and for organizing religious functions.
He had removed the security guard of the building. He was collecting parking charges and collecting amount from the use of parking space for organizing religious functions. The complainant raised objection to such use of the parking space of the building. It enraged the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and he was creating trouble in the parking of the vehicle by the complainant by various methods. From the charge-sheet and the complaints, the allegations of the complainant against the petitioners is as under:
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER, NAMELY, SURYAKANT SHARMA:
(a) Suryakant Sharma knocked her door at night and threatened the complainant to sell her flat or obey his command;
(b) Suryakant Sharma is parking his bike in the middle of the parking space in across position to prevent the complainant from parking her car;
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 21 of 28
(c) Suryakant Sharma scratched her car when the complainant managed to park her car;
(d) Suryakant Sharma locked car parking gate from both sides to prevent the complainant from using the parking space;
(e) Suryakant Sharma and Manjeet Singh knocked her door at 10.30 p.m. in inebriated state and given abuses and threatened to kill the complainant and her family;
(f) Suryakant Sharma and Manjeet Singh encroached half of parking space by placing their household material in the parking space and locked main gate from both sides;
(g) Suryakant Sharma broken electric meter wire fixed in the common place;
(h) Suryakant Sharma broken water pipe on 23.09.2017;
(i) Suryakant Sharma threatened the complainant and her family members not to interfere in collection otherwise he will ruin their life and property; and
(j) Suryakant Sharma instigated the other flat holders to keep their flower pots in the staircase and water them in a way that the water spill on the staircases leading to apprehension of slipping;
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS:
(a) On 20.12.2017, the petitioners abused and threatened to kill the complainant and her daughters on the issue of locking of parking gate; and
(b) On 27.12.2017, the petitioners, namely, Suryakant Sharma and Anita Sharma knocked the door of the complainant and again threatened her.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 22 of 28
40. From the aforesaid narration of the allegations against the petitioners, it is evident that primarily, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma has threatened the complainant and her family members since the day she occupied flat in the building. The allegations made in the complaint would reveal that the said threats were sufficient to create alarm in the mind of the complainant and her family members to their safety and security. Prima facie, an offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma .
41. The petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma damaged water pipe and electric meter wire on 23.09.2017 and therefore, offence under Section 427 IPC is made out against him.
42. Besides the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma, the other petitioners had abused daughters of the complainant and threatened to kill them on 20.12.2017. When the complainant came down stairs, the petitioners threatened to kill her and her family members. On 27.12.2017, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma and his wife, namely, Smt. Anita Sharma knocked door of the complainant and threatened her. Therefore, offence under Section 506/34 IPC is made out against the petitioners, namely, Smt. Anita Sharma, Manjeet Singh and Amarjeet Kaur.
43. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the charge does not specify the time and place of incident and therefore, the impugned charge is vague and unspecific.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 23 of 28
44. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners rightly relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Main Pal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 3292 that "9. The following principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code, relevant to this case, become evident from the said enunciations:
(i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced.
Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge and the accused was aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused showed that he was defending himself against the real and actual charge and not the erroneous charge.
(iii) In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself."
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 24 of 28
45. The principle underlying framing of charge is to provide clear, precise and specific information of the accusations to the accused to put him on notice about the case regarding which he is being tried and the basic facts that he has to defend. Any infirmity in the frame of charge would cause serious prejudice to the accused in defending the case effectively and efficiently. The accused cannot defend the charge unless he does not have notice of exact nature of charge against him.
46. However, the error in framing of charge would not ipso facto result in discharge of the petitioners. The Court has power to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgement is pronounced under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. For every distinct offence, the accused must be charged separately.
47. In the present case, there is an error in the charge as an omnibus charge, without specifying the date, time and place of offence and particulars of the allegations against each of the petitioners, was framed. The incident dated 27.12.2017 does not find mention in the charge. In the present case, the petitioner, namely, Suryakant Sharma should have been charged separately for committing offences under Section 506/34 IPC and 427 IPC. The other petitioners, namely, Smt. Anita Sharma, Manjeet Singh and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur should have been charged for offence under Section 506/34 IPC. The case is at initial stage. No witness has been examined. The trial Court has power to frame appropriate charges.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 25 of 28
48. As regards reliance on the judgement in Hari Kishen Sharma vs. State and Anr., Crl. M.C. 692/2014 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 24.09.2018, there was no evidence regarding the particulars of the utterances made by the petitioner against the prosecutrix whereas in the present case, the complainant has not only attributed specific role to each of the petitioners, she has stated the exact words spoken by them. In the said case, the prosecutrix had not stated the date, time and place of the criminal intimidation whereas in the present case, the complainant has specifically mentioned the date of incident as 23.09.2017, 20.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 as well as the place of incident. The allegations made in the said case did not cause alarm to the petitioner whereas in the present case, the complainant has not only narrated the entire ordeal to which she was subjected to but she has alleged essential facts from which inference that the petitioners had threatened her and her family members with the intent to cause alarm can be reasonably inferred. The allegations made in the present case are specific and cannot be said to be vague allegations.
49. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petitions of the petitioners and there is no legal infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order directing framing of charge.
Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 26 of 28
50. However, the impugned charge is set-aside and the trial Court is directed to frame fresh charge against each of the petitioners mentioning the date and place of incident and specific role of the petitioners.
51. The trial Court is directed to frame separate charge against each of the petitioners so that they have the notice of accusations against them and can understand the nature of allegations against them so that they can defend the charge during the trial.
52. With the aforesaid observations, the revision petitions are dismissed so far as the challenge to the order dated 22.03.2021 directing framing of charge is concerned. However, the revision petitions so far as the challenge to the impugned charge is concerned is allowed subject to the aforesaid directions to the trial Court to frame fresh charges against the petitioners.
53. A copy of the judgement alongwith trial Court record be sent back to the trial Court.
54. The revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.12.24 14:54:10 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 23rd December, 2021 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 27 of 28 Suryakant Sharma vs. State CNR No.: DLCT010102962021 Crl. Revision No. 139/2021 23.12.2021 Present : None.
Vide separate judgement, the revision petition is dismissed so far as the challenge to the order dated 22.03.2021 directing framing of charge is concerned. However, the revision petition so far as the challenge to the impugned charge is concerned is allowed subject to the directions, as contained in the judgement, to the trial Court to frame fresh charges against the petitioner. The revision file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.12.24 14:54:24 +0530 Sanjay SharmaII ASJ03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi NK 23.12.2021 Crl. Rev. No. 139/2021 Suryakant Sharma vs. State Page No. 28 of 28