Delhi District Court
Smt Durgesh Nandini vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 1 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST) , DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 32/2/2015
New No.55810/2016
Smt Durgesh Nandini,
S/o Shri Girish Chand Varshney,
R/o Flat No.1 DTC Colony
Shadipur, New Delhi-110008
Revisionist
Versus
1.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. Smt Amita Sandal
W/O Sh Sunil Sandal
R/O C-42,DTC Colony, West Patel Nagar,
Shadipur Depot, New Delhi
Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.07.2015 Date of Assignment : 09.07.2015 Date of Arguments : 01.09.2016 Date of Judgment : 01.09.2016
Appearance(s) : Sh. Madan Lal, Ld. Cl. for the revisionist.
Sh. Rajat Kalra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Govind Tyagi, Ld Cl for respondent No.2
1. The present revision petition has been filed under section 397 & 399 Cr.p.c. to assail the orders dt. 30.06.2015 (hereinafter called impugned order) as passed by ld. MM-(Mahila Court -03), West /Delhi, (hereinafter called the Ld. Trial Court), whereby the C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 1 of 8 Ld. Trial Court has ordered for framing a charge Under Section 506/34 IPC against the revisionist (accused No.2 before the Ld. Trial Court).
2. The brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant/ Respondent No.2 Amita Sandal along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before Ld. MM/West/Delhi. Vide order dated 17.04.2013 has allowed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for registration of an FIR under section 341/354/506/34 IPC, and accordingly FIR No.140/2013 was registered against the revisionist Smt. Durgesh Nandini and one Sh. Ved Prakash.
3. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency has filed the charge sheet. In the charge sheet the concerned IO/SHO has categorically stated that from the investigation no offence is made out against the revisionist as well as one Sh. Ved Prakash. However, the concerned IO/ SHO has stated in the charge sheet that the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2 still stand on her complaint. Hence the Court may summon the accused persons if deem fit.
4. After considering the charge sheet the Ld. Magistrate vide order dated 05.03.2014 took cognizance of the offence U/s 354/509/341/506 IPC and Ld. Trial Court after hearing the argument on charge have passed an order on charge dated 24.06.2015 vide which the Ld. Trial Court has directed that charge has to be framed against the revisionist U/s 506/34 IPC. Aggrieved by that order the revisionist has filed the present petition.
C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 2 of 85. I have heard the Ld. counsel for revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and have perused the entire record including the Trial Court Record. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same.
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has vehemently argued that the charge framed by Ld. Trial Court are perverse and are not only against the facts but also in contravention of law as no material was ever found for framing of charge under section 506/34 IPC against the revisionist. It has been vehemently argued that the order has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court in the most mechanical manner and without application of mind.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed the revision petition thereby stating that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to get into the detailed scrutiny by shifting and weighing the material placed on record by the prosecution and is only required to proceed on the basis of prima facie material and see as to whether sufficient grounds do exist for proceeding further for trial. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has stated that the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court clearly reflects that there was sufficient material on record in arriving at the view for passing the impugned order which does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or lack of propriety.
8. Considering the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 I am of the view that the settlement C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 3 of 8 preposition of law is that at the time of framing of charge the court has to see prima facie facts which is sufficient to proceed further. It is not necessary to look into the aspect whether the evidence collected by the investigating agency is sufficient to convict the accused or not.
9. It is also well settled law that the defence of the accused persons is not to be looked into at the time of framing of charge.
10. Now question arises whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed further against the revisionist / accused or not. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 has filed the complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C. and along with the complaint an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC was also moved. The Ld. Magistrate has allowed the application of the respondent no. 2 / complainant being moved U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC and directed the concerned SHO to register the FIR and to investigate the case. The concerned IO/SHO has registered the FIR no. 140/13, U/s 354/341/506/34 IPC, P.S.Patel Nagar and investigated the case and filed the detailed charge sheet after investigation.
11. Though as per the conclusion arrived at by the IO/SHO concerned no offence is made out against the revisionist and one person namely Sh. Ved Prakash. The concerned IO / SHO also mentioned in the charge sheet that respondent no. 2 / complainant is stand by her statement hence the court may summon the accused persons if deem fit.
12. Accordingly, the Ld. Magistrate has took the cognizance of the offence U/s 354/509/506 IPC and summoned the accused C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 4 of 8 persons.
13. Now it has to be looked into whether there are sufficient material on record against the revisionist to frame the charge against him U/s 506/34 IPC.
14. On perusal of charge sheet it reveals that the first complaint was made by the respondent no. 2 / complainant to her senior officers dated 23.08.2011. On bare reading of that complaint nothing is alleged at all against the revisionist. There is no allegation being made in the said complaint by respondent no. 2 / complainant. The complaint by the respondent no. 2 / complainant was made against one person namely Sh. Ved Prakash.
15. Moreover, after registration of FIR during the course of investigation the statement of respondent no. 2 / complainant was also recorded by the concerned IO on 13.06.2013. The only words stated by the respondent no. 2 / complainant in that statement being recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC are "Application Ved Prakash ke khilaf likhkar jo mere sath harkat hui thi depot manager Smt. Durgesh Nandini v dusri copy senior manager IAR Smt. Aradhana jo IP Head Quarter baithti hai jo meri officer hai unko copy bhej di thi or deport manager Smt. Durgesh Nandini ke pas khud lekar gai thi mai jaisi he depot manager ke kamre me ghusi to unhone kaha ki app yaha se jai to maini unse kaha ki aap meri baat sun lo, unhone meri na to koi baat suni or na hi meri darkhast li. Aur meri shikayat faad kar fenk di. Maini police ko shikayat nahi di thi kyonki mujhe badnami ka dar tha aur pehle se chedkhani ke aarop Ved Prakash par Mayapuri, Naraina, Shadipur depot me lage hai C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 5 of 8 mujhe unke naam maloom nahi hai jinhone aarop lagae hai. Aur mujhe nishchit samay v tarikh bhi maloom nahi hai. Bayan sun liya v samajh liya thik hai."
16. From the perusal of the statement of respondent no. 2/ complainant recorded on 13.06.2013 it reveals that it did not disclosed any offence being committed by the revisionist U/s 506 IPC. There is no other incriminating statement of any witness against the revisionist. It is pertinent to mention here that the statement of respondent no. 2 / complainant dated 13.06.2013 has been recorded after the complaint being filed U/s 200 Cr.PC in the Court. In that statement she has not stated anything incriminating against the revisionist.
17. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Counsel for respondent no. 2 that in the complaint there are specific allegations against the revisionist as mentioned in paragraph no. 4 & 5 of the complaint being filed in the Court. And Ld. Magistrate has also mentioned in her order dated 24.06.2015 that the revisionist has threatened the respondent no. 2 / complainant to kill her.
18. On procedural aspect once once FIR was lodged on the directions of Ld. Magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC and investigating agency has filed the charge sheet after investigation and cognizance has been taken on charge sheet. Though the IO has filed the charge sheet in the form of cancellation report as he come to the conclusion, after investigation, that no offence is made out. But since the complainant / respondent no. 2 has stand by her statement the option is left to the Court to take cognizance C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 6 of 8 of the offence from the material collected by the IO. It means that cognizance has been taken by the Ld. Magistrate on the charge sheet on the basis of facts being collected by the investigating agency. There is no cognizance of complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C as there is no protest petition being filed by the respondent no. 2/ complainant.
19. For the sake of arguments if we consider that allegations are there against the revisionist in the complaint being filed U/s 200 Cr.PC.then in those circumstances, the procedure for complaint cases has to be adopted which has not been complied with by the Ld. Magistrate.
20. If allegations are there in the complaint being filed U/s 200 Cr.PC the Ld. Magistrate could have follow the procedure as envisaged u/s 200 Cr.PC. The complainant / respondent no. 2 and her witnesses has to be examined before the Court and thereafter to proceed under chapter XV Cr.PC. But here in the present case there is different situation. The complainant and her witnesses has not been examined by the Ld. Magistrate. The charge sheet did not disclosed any offence against the revisionist.
21. So, in totality there is no sufficient material on record against the revisionist to frame the charge. In these circumstances, charge against revisionist U/s 506/34 IPC as was directed vide order dated 24.06.2015 is set aside.
22. Let the copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court with TCR.
C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 7 of 823. Revision records be consigned to record room after due completion.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 01.09.2016 (JAGDISH KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI C.R. No23/2/2015 Durgesh Nandini Vs State & Ors Page 8 of 8