Delhi High Court - Orders
Jasmine Nagpal vs State & Ors on 30 November, 2022
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4297/2018
JASMINE NAGPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Choudhary alongwith Mr.
Sachin Anand along with petitioner in
person.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar APP for the State
with SI Amanjeet Singh, PS: Hazrat
Nizzamuddin.
Mr. Prag Chawla, Mr. Jagjit Singh
and Ms. Ruchi Kapoor, Advocates for
R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 30.11.2022
1. This petition has been filed to quash and set aside the order dated 28th May, 2018 by learned Trial Court in CRL.Rev. 212/2017 arising out of FIR No. 404/2008 registered with PS Hazarat Nizamuddinn, New Delhi. The gravamen of the issue before this Court is an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner on the ground that while charge-sheet mentioned Section 325 IPC in addition to Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and that the MLC shows the injuries as being grievous, the mention of Section 325 is omitted in the later proceedings including the order on charge dated 29th April, 2014. The application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was rejected by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:06.12.2022 05:55:06 the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21st January, 2017 on the ground that the order on charge has already been passed. Impugning the said order of learned Trial Court before the learned Sessions Judge, the issue was contested yet again and the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 28th May, 2018 did not find any illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this petition has been agitated before this Court. By order dated 25th November, 2019, this Court directed that since the matter was pending before this Court and the pleadings were completed "judgment be not passed by the learned Trial Court". Today this Court is informed that final arguments are yet to be heard before the learned Trial Court.
2. Having pursued the record and having heard the counsels for the parties and that the MLC records the opinion of the doctor that the injury is 'grievous'. This Court is of the opinion that there is no reasonable explanation available on record for dropping of charge of Section 325 IPC pursuant to it being there in the charge-sheet. Considering that the trial is at an advance stage, the petitioner is at liberty to press the point of omission of Section 325 IPC before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law notwithstanding the earlier decisions of the learned Trial Court in respect of the petitioner application under section 216 Cr.P.C.
3. Pursuant to the petitioning by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court regarding addition of the charge, the learned Trial Court may accordingly decide in accordance with law subject to the decision by the learned Trial court on this issue of addition of charge. The order dated 25th November, 2019 by this Court will not stand in the way for pronouncement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:06.12.2022 05:55:06 of the judgment.
4. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court ANISH DAYAL, J NOVEMBER 30, 2022/rk Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:06.12.2022 05:55:06