Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 325 indian penal code in Tejpal Singh vs State on 5 February, 2024Matching Fragments
1. Vide this order this Court shall decide the revision petition filed u/s. 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (Mahila Court), South East, Saket, whereby Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the complainant / respondent No. 2 u/s 216 Cr.P.C and directed framing of additional charge for the commission of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC against the revisionist.
2. The facts leading to filing of present revision petition are that the complainant / respondent No. 2 got registered FIR No. 404/08 PS H.N. Din against the revisionist and one other person for the commission of offences punishable u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. After due investigation, police filed a chargesheet u/s 498-A/406/325/34 IPC against the revisionist and said other person in the Court of Ld. Magistrate concerned. The Ld. Magistrate heard the matter on the point of charge and on 29.04.2014 directed framing of a charge against the revisionist and the said other person only u/s 498-A/34 IPC and u/s 406 IPC respectively. Against the said order, the complainant / respondent No. 2 preferred an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. for amendment of charge. In the said application, the complainant / respondent No. 2 had prayed for framing of an additional charge u/s 325 IPC but the said prayer was declined by the Ld. Magistrate vide order dated 21.01.2016 on the ground that the said Court does not have the power to review its order dated 29.04.2014. Against the said order, the complainant / respondent No.2 filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions. The said revision petition was dismissed on 28.05.2018. Thereafter, the complainant / respondent No.2 agitated the matter before Crl. Revision No: 544/2023, Tejpal Singh vs State & Anr. page no. 2 of 14 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Crl. M.C. No. 4297/18 titled Jasmine Nagpal Vs. State and Ors. The said petition came to be decided vide order dated 30.11.2022, whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed the following directions:-
"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.
7. This Court has considered the above submissions and has gone through the records, including the TCR.
DISCUSSION
8. The factual background discussed in the beginning of this judgment clearly reflects that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has opined in categorical terms (in para 2 of the judgment dated 30.11.2022) that no reasonable explanation is available on record for dropping the charge punishable u/s 325 IPC despite the availability of the opinion of the doctor concerned to the effect that the injury sustained by complainant / respondent No. 2 is grievous in nature. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi granted liberty to the complainant / respondent No. 2 to press her grievance regarding the omission of section 325 IPC before the Ld. Magistrate. The Ld. Magistrate vide the impugned order addressed the above grievance of complainant / respondent No. 2 and directed the framing of additional charge u/s 325 IPC while observing as under:-
In such circumstances, in light of the evidence that has come on record, ingredients of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC r/w Section 320 IPC clause (Eighthly) are disclosed and even though the present case is an advance stage, it is in the interest of justice that an additional charge u/s 325 IPC be framed against the accused and opportunity be given to the prosecution for leading evidence with respect to the added charge. Merely Crl. Revision No: 544/2023, Tejpal Singh vs State & Anr. page no. 13 of 14 because the trial has almost concluded does not warrant the accused. Accordingly, application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. stands allowed."