Delhi District Court
Crl. Revision No.243/13 vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
1. Crl. Revision No.243/13
Mangey Ram Rana ....Revisionist
Vs.
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) ...... Respondent
2. Crl. Revision No.01/14
1. Roshni Devi
2. Yogita ......... Revisionist
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi .......... Respondent
Date of Institution: 10.12.2013 & 21.01.2014
Reserved for Order on: 29.04.2014
Order Pronounced on : 06.05.2014
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P
age No.1 of 13
ORDER
By way of this order, I shall dispose off two criminal revision petitions filed vide no.243/13 and 01/14, as both the revisions have arisen out of one and the same order dated 06.09.2013 passed by Ms. Priya Mahendra, Ld. MM whereby the application filed u/s 294 Cr.PC has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision petition are that Smt. Sharda had made complaint against the applicants alleging that she was married to Gurender Rana on 2/12/2001 and more than a sum of Rs.4.00 lac was spent in the marriage. Dowry articles/gifts were given by her inlaws were not satisfied and she was desribed as a daughter of beggar. The marraige was consummated after one month of marriage as her husband was under misguidance who later started behaving in good manner but infact they had hatched a conspiracy and whenever she tried to report the matter to police, her husband stopped her. He tolerated all the acts of cruelties committed by Mange Ram Rana, Roshni Devi, Hitender Rana and Yogita. Yogita used to say in the house and instigate other inlaws against complainant. They all demand maruti car from the complainant just after two days of marriage. They commented that they
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.2 of 13 wrongly estimated her father as he is in fact a beggar. Her nanad Yogita uttered that if complainant fails to bring car and costly gifts she will not be allowed in the matrimonial house and Hitender also passed dirty comments. She was treated like a slave and not allowed to sit on sofa set or bed and uttered that she will not be treated as human being unless car is brought. She was also threatened of dire consequences if she made complaint. Mange Ram also used to misbehave with her and having evil eyes on her. When she objected he used to utter that 'ish ghar main rahna hai to jaisa main kahoonga waisa hi karna hoga aur ekant milte hi mujhe chhed chhad karne ki kosish karta aur kahta ki apne pati Gurender ke pass nahi sona'. On the objection, she used to be beaten and uttered that tere Maan baap ne na to dahej diya aur tere ko haamare yahan mufat main rotiyan todne ke liye bhej diya aur uspe tun nakhre dikhati hai'. On her compaint to Roshni, she uttered 'Tujhe chedta hi to hai tera balatkar to nahi kiya aur waise tu hai bhi ishi kabil'. She has alleged that her entire jewellary/istridhan are still in the illegal custody of the accused persons. She has further alleged that on 24.12.2001 at about 8 p.m Mange Ram under drunken condition, at the instance of Roshni, Hitender and Yogita beaten her mercilessly and after sometime her husband tried to save her and on that her mother in law told 'tere
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.3 of 13 ko iska saath dene ka natak karne ko kaha tha aur ab teri itni himmat ho gai ki tu hamaare saamne bolne laga ab lagta hai tere ko bhi sabak sikhana padega'. When police was called by villager, the accused persons concocted a false story that she was committing suicide. On 25.12.2001 Roshini threatened to her to leave the house and Yogita described her Kulakshni and Hitender uttered mere bhai par tune jadoo tona karke apne bas main kar rakha magar tere jadoo tone hamarre upar koi asar nahi karenga. She was given 12 hours time to bring maruti car and her husband was warned that if he will not assist, he shall be disowned from the property. On 26.12.2011 at 5 a.m. Mange Ram caught the hand of complainant and tried to torn the clothes of complainant and when she cired, he slapped on breast and squeeze the breast of the complainant. She was rescued by her husband and when she tried to lodge the complaint, she alongwith her husband was forcibly ousted from the house. When her parents went to their house, they were insulted. Thereafer she started living in Hira Park due to harassment and torture. She joined a job and one day when she was returning home, she was stopped and abused in filthy languages. She went to take her furniture and when she asked her jwellary from Roshini she refused rather uttered that ish ghar se tujhe kuch nai milega aur tujhe furniture ishle diya ish ghar pe
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.4 of 13 tera koi kabja nahi rahe'. On 24.6.02 Mange Ram, Roshni and Hitender came to the residence of complainant and started quarreling and Roshin Devi uttered that 'abhi to tujhe ghar se bahar nikala hai aur ab tujhe apni zindgi se bahar nikaal denge'. She was beaten with fists and kickes and she recived injury in her abdomen due to which the child in teh wom of complainatn died and miscarriage took place due to cruelties of the accused persons. Thereater she changed her residence and on 31.1.05 Mange Ram, Roshni Devi and Hitender alongwith two hired gundas came to said plae and started abusing and beating the complainant. PCR was called and DD no.13A was lodged and complainant was taken to hospital where her and her husband's MLC was prepared. They approached the police station but no FIR was registered rather IO P.D.Meena compelled them to compromise the matter. They were threatened that if the matter is not compromised they will be put behind bar u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. IO created such an atmosphere and forcibly taken signatures of the husband of the complainant. On 10.6.05 Mange Ram threatened her husband to give her divorce failing which he shall be disowned from the ancestral property. She filed complaint before SHO PS Kanjawala and thereafter before CAW Cell on 28.12.05 and after filing complaint accused persons became more adamant and aggressive and on 29.12.05
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.5 of 13 they came to residence of complainant and started quarreling with the complainant and when he protested, she was beaten mercilessly and even her husband also assisted them. On 12.1.06 Mange Ram and Yogita threatened the complainant to withdraw the complaint. On 18.1.2006 when on the invitation of family members of her husband, she went to their house, Mange Ram snatch the hair of the complainant mercilessly and torned her suit. Roshini Devi also joined him and forcibly removed her wearing jewellary i.e. gold tops, gold chain, costing Rs.25,000/ alongwith purse containing Rs.2700/. Hitender came to the spot and gave her beatings. She was rescued by the neighbours. She was taken to hospital where her MLC was prepared. She alongwith her husband was beating on 31.1.06 and MLCs were prepared. She has further alleged that her entire ishtridhan are in the illegal custody of the above named accused persons over which they have no right. On the basis of this complaint,FIR was registered. On 04.11.09 order on charge was passed and accused Mange Ram, Roshni Devi, Yogita and Hitender were ordered to be charged u/s 498A/323/34 IPC and separate charge was ordered to be framed u/s 354 IPC against accused Mange Ram and u/s 406 IPC against accused Mange Ram and Roshni Devi. Thereafter, accused persons moved application u/s 294 Cr.PC and 91 Cr.PC. The application u/s 91
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.6 of 13 Cr.PC was allowed on 21.11.2012. On 6.9.2013 Ld. MM heard the arguments on the application u/s 294 Cr.PC and dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist, preferred the present revision for setting aside the said order.
3. The present revision petition was received by this court and trial court record was summoned and received. I have heard the arguments on this revision petition from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as from the Ld. APP for the State.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists in both the revisions that the Ld. MM has not followed the procedure laid down u/s 294 Cr.PC. He has drawn the attention of the court on the documents available on file and stated that admission and denial of documents are vital in nature as it will demolish the case of the prosecution. But the Ld. MM has not considered the same and the order is unjustified. It is submitted that the documents sought to be produced are public documents and they can be admitted without any formal proof as provided in Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that these documents are sufficient to discharge the accused persons. It is further argued that the charge can be
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.7 of 13 amended at any stage. Ld. Counsel submitted that the complainant used to make false and frivoulous complaints against the revisionists in order to grab the property and investigation agencies have also come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the revisionists. Ld. Counsel has argued that the main dispute between the parties is in relation to property which the complainant wants to grab. It is submitted that the order passed by the Ld. MM may kindly be set aside.
5. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State has argued that Ld. Trial court has passed the present order after consideration of provisions of sec.294 Cr.PC and thet order passed by the Ld. Trial Court does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court and the present revision has no merit, the same may kindly be dismissed.
6. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as the Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the trial court file. It would be apt to recall that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot go into intricate details as regards the merits of a matter and may interfere only when there is any illegality or material irregularity or
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.8 of 13 impropriety in the order passed by the lower court. A revisional court cannot act as a court of appeal and reappraise the merits of the case. Thus the task that lay before this court is to see whether the trial court carefully applied the law with regard to dismissing the application u/s 294 Cr.PC to the facts of this case and if there is any infirmity in the impugned order.
7. So, I have perused the order passed by the Ld. Trial court dated 06.09.2013. Sec. 294 Cr.PC contemplates - No formal proof of certain documents (1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the came may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such documnet may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signatures to be proved.
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.9 of 13
8. The language of the section makes it clear that a document genuineness whereof is not in dispute can be considered even in the inquiry which means that even at the precharge stage. The legislative intent is clear that the court even at the precharge stage can look into the undisputed documents before making up its mind.
9. I have perused the application filed by the revisionist u/s 294 Cr.PC. Alongwith the said application, the revisionists filed copies of certain documents.I have perused the same and it is revealed that all these documents are public documents. The order on charge in this case has already been passed long back on 04.09.2009 vide which the charge has already been ordered to be framed against the revisionists/accused. Despite order on charge passed in the year 2009, the charge is yet to be framed.
10. I have perused the case law titled Mohan Lal Singhal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1996 JCC 129 wherein it has been held in headnote that it is stated in head note that 'Cr.PC 1973 - Sec. 239 r/w se.294 - Accused before framing charge producing some documents to be admitted or denied by the
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.10 of 13 prosecution - The court has to hear the accused before framing charges - such hearing includes filing of documents by the accused otherwise it would not amount to proper opportunity of being heard'.
11. It is further stated that 'Cr.PC 1973 Sec. 294 - Object of provisions - placing prosecution and accused on par with regard to documentary evidence and saving time and money by formally proving each of such documents at an early stage'.
12. It is further stated that 'Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 294 - Precharge stage - Accused praying the court to call upon the prosecution to admit or deny the documnets filed by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Trial Court declined the request holding interalia that proper stage for the accused to file the documents would be at the stage of defence - Held: prayer of accused was legal and reasonable - should not have been rejected
- Order set aside'.
13. It is further stated that 'Cr.PC - Sec. 294 - Precharge stage accused filing some documents praying the court to call upon the prosecution to admit them or deny - Those documents
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.11 of 13 which are admitted by the prosecution would be admissible in evidence'.
14. In consideration of submissions of the Ld.counsel for the revisionists and rival contentions of the Ld.APP for the State and in consideration of the observations of the above mentioned case law, the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 6.9.2013 is hereby setaside with the directions to the Ld. MM to rehear the arguments on the application U/s 294 Cr.P.C and to decide afresh in consideration of the above mentioned case law. Resultantly, both the revision petitions bearing no. 01/14 and 243/13 are hereby allowed vide this common order.
15. On perusal of the file, it is revealed that since order for framing charge, a consideration period of time i.e about four and half year has lapsed but the case, in hand is being delayed by the parties on one pretext or the other. Ld. MM is directed to pass the order on application as soon as possible and then proceed as per law.
16. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 09.05.2014.
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.12 of 13
17. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of this order and both revision files be consigned to record room.
18. Copy of this order be placed in connected revision petition.
Announced in the Open Court on 06.05.2014.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI
1. Mangey Ram Rana Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Roshni Devi, Yogita Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.Rev. no.243/2013 & 01/14 P age No.13 of 13