Delhi District Court
Jasbir Singh Maggu vs State on 29 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 56008/16
IN THE MATTER OF :
1 Jasbir Singh Maggu
S/o Lt. Sh. Hari Singh,
R/o J67/68, Beri Wala Bagh,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi110064.
2 Charanjit Kaur Maggu
W/o Jasbir Singh Maggu,
R/o J67/68, Beri Wala Bagh,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi110064.
............PETITIONERS
versus
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
........RESPONDENT
DATE OF FILING : 07.09.2015
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 06.08.2016
DATE OF ORDER : 29.08.2016
ORDER
1 This is a revision petition filed by above mentioned CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 1/7 petitioners against the impugned Order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Ld. MM thereby framing of charge u/s 420/406/506/34 IPC r/w section 3/4/7 and 56 Madras Chit Fund Act 1961 against the petitioners.
2 The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that FIR No. 1153/06 P.S. Rajouri Garden was registered against the petitioners with allegations that during the period of 6-7 years prior to year 2007, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention organized illegal bolli committee/chit fund and dishonestly induced the complainant and several other persons to invest money in their committee/chit fund and took huge cash from them. It is further alleged that thereafter they discontinued the aforesaid committee/chit fund and had not repaid the amount to them. It is also alleged that both the accused persons threatened the complainant and other victims and misappropriated the above said money. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and vide order dt. 25.05.2015, the ld. trial court framed charge u/s 420/506/406/34 IPC & 3/4/7/56 of Madras Chit Funds Act 1961 against the petitioners.
3 By way of present petition, it is contended on CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 2/7 behalf of the petitioners that the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside 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 the impugned order is cryptic and does not disclose the material on the basis of which a prima-facie case against the petitioners is said to be made out. Further that the ld. Trial court has not recorded the arguments of the petitioners. Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that no dishonest intention can be said to be made out from the material on record. Further the ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of all the complainants specifically exculpating the petitioner no. 2. Further that the basic ingredients of section 506 IPC cannot be said to be present in the instant case, on the basis of the material available on record. Alongwith certain other contention, it is submitted that the petitioners be discharged.
4 Alongwith present petition, the petitioners has filed one application for condonation of delay with contention that due to misplace of file, he could not file the petition within time.
5 On the other hand, the petition and the application for condonation of delay are opposed on behalf of State and it CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 3/7 is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that impugned order does not require any interference and the petition has been filed with delay without any sufficient cause.
6 I have carefully perused the record including the trial court record in the light of submissions made before me.
7 So far as application for condonation of delay is concerned, there is delay of nine days in filing the present petition. In the entirety of facts and circumstances in general and submissions made by ld. Counsel for petitioners in particular, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is condoned.
8 So far as merits of the case are concerned, the perusal of impugned order revels that the Ld. Trial court while passing the impugned order dt. 25.05.2015 has considered the material available on record and recorded its satisfaction regarding a prima-facie case against the petitioner before framing of charges. At the time of framing of charge only a prima-facie 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 CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 4/7 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 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 undoubted CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 5/7 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."
9 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 against the petitioners. The impugned order cannot be said to be a cryptic order. It is revealed from the impugned order that ld. Trial court has mentioned and considered the submissions made on behalf of accused persons/petitioners.
10 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 25.05.2015, has taken into consideration all the relevant facts. It is well settled law that CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 6/7 revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in 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.
11 In view of above discussion, the revision petition is found to 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) TODAY i.e.On 29th August, 2016 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI 29.08.2016 CR No. 56008/16 Jasbir Singh Maggu vs. State PAGE No. 7/7