Full Text
Translation output
$-27&28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 32 13/2015
AMIT SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate
AMIT SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector
S Ravinder Malik
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector
S Ravinder Malik
CRL.M.C. 3215/2015
AMIT SHARMA Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, Advocate
AMIT SHARMA Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector
Ravinder Malik
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector
Ravinder Malik
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
S % 10.08.2015 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of impugned order dated 13th January, 2015 is sought. Vide aforesaid order, petitioner has been called upon to face trial for the offences under Section 420/120B IPC in the alternative to the main offence under Section 409/120B IPC.
Since the challenge to impugned order in the above captioned petitions is on identical grounds, therefore, these two petitions are heard together and arc being disposed of by this common order.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no criminal offence is made out as the dispute, which is the subject matter of
CrI.M.C.No.3213 & 3215 of 2015 Page 1 2015:DHC:11287 the FIR in question is purely civil one. Without admitting that the offence of cheating has been committed, it was submitted that on the same set of allegations, petitioner cannot be made to face the trial for the offences under
Section 420 IPC and 409 IPC as the ingredients of these two offences are entirely different.
Upon hearing and perusal of impugned order and trial court's order, I find that at the stage of charge, only prima facie case has to be seen and a
I charge can be framed even on strong suspicion. On this aspect, the pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor citation are as under: -
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, ifput to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage."
. Applying the afore noted dictum to the facts of the instant case, I find that there is no palpable error in the impugned order, which calls upon petitioner to face the trial under Section 420/1 20B IPC or in the alternative under Section 409/34 IPC.
Consequentially, finding no substance in these two petitions, these are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 10, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.No.3213 & 3215 of 2015 Page 2
2015:DHC:11287
S % 10.08.2015 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of impugned order dated 13th January, 2015 is sought. Vide aforesaid order, petitioner has been called upon to face trial for the offences under Section 420/120B IPC in the alternative to the main offence under Section 409/120B IPC.
Since the challenge to impugned order in the above captioned petitions is on identical grounds, therefore, these two petitions are heard together and arc being disposed of by this common order.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no criminal offence is made out as the dispute, which is the subject matter of
CrI.M.C.No.3213 & 3215 of 2015 Page 1 2015:DHC:11287 the FIR in question is purely civil one. Without admitting that the offence of cheating has been committed, it was submitted that on the same set of allegations, petitioner cannot be made to face the trial for the offences under
Section 420 IPC and 409 IPC as the ingredients of these two offences are entirely different.
Upon hearing and perusal of impugned order and trial court's order, I find that at the stage of charge, only prima facie case has to be seen and a
I charge can be framed even on strong suspicion. On this aspect, the pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor citation are as under: -
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, ifput to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage."
. Applying the afore noted dictum to the facts of the instant case, I find that there is no palpable error in the impugned order, which calls upon petitioner to face the trial under Section 420/1 20B IPC or in the alternative under Section 409/34 IPC.
Consequentially, finding no substance in these two petitions, these are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 10, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.No.3213 & 3215 of 2015 Page 2
2015:DHC:11287
JUDGMENT