Full Text
Translation output
$-25 & 26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 287/2013
KHURSHID Petitioner STATE TARUN STATE
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Aastha Dhwan, Advocates
CRL.REV.P. 287/2013
KHURSHID Petitioner STATE TARUN STATE
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Aastha Dhwan, Advocates
VERSUS
Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -
State with SI Jitnder Kumar
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -
State with SI Jitnder Kumar
CRL.REV.P. 288/2013
Through:
Through:
VERSUS
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Sharma &
Ms. Aastha Dhwan, Advocates Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent - State with SI Jitnder Kumar
Petitioner Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Sharma &
Ms. Aastha Dhwan, Advocates Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent - State with SI Jitnder Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
13.05.2013 Crl.M.A. No.5995/2013 in Crl.Rev. P. No. 287/2013
Crl.M.A. No.5997/2013 in CrLRev. P. No. 288/2013
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
CrI. Rev. P. No.287/2013 Crl Rev. P. No.288/2013
Page 1 2013:DHC:8504 Boththe applications are disposed of.
CrLRev. P. No. 287/2013 & CrLM.A. No.5996/2013
CrLRev. P. No. 288/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.5998/2013
In the above captioned two petitions, the impugned order is of 30''^
March, 2013 vide which petitioner- Tarun has been called upon to face trial for offence under Section 120 B r/w Sections 392 & 182 of the IPG and petitioner- Khurshid has been called upon to face trial for offence under Sections 452/392/34 of the IPG.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondent-State.
. With the consent of both sides, the above captioned two petitions are taken up for hearing together, as they pertain to one incident.
Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order of30^ March, 2013 is not only cryptic but erroneously records that petitioner - Tarun is not to face trial for offence under Section 392/34 of the IPG, whereas he has been called to face trial for offence under Section
392 ofthe IPG with the aid of 120 B ofthe IPG by the very same order
^ and that the ingredients ofoffence for which petitioners have been called to face trial, are lacking. Itis also asserted by learned senior counsel for petitioners that there is no complaint in writing under Section 195 ofthe
Gr.P.G. for offence under Section 182 ofthe IPG qua petitioner - Tarun, which vitiates the impugned order and so, itdeserves to be set aside.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State concedes that the impugned order is quite cryptic. However, it is
Crl. Rev. P. No.287/2013 submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that there is sufficient material on record to justify the impugned order calling upon petitioners to face trial for the offences alleged.
A revisional court has to see whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity or not. Abare perusal of the impugned order does not disclose as to whether any complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. was filed qua petitioner- Tarun to prosecute him for offence under Section 182 ofthe IPG. This is an error which is apparent on the face ofrecord. Trial court is required to disclose in the order offraming charge as to primafacie what is the material on record on the basis of which petitioners have been called upon to face trial for offences in question. Such aview is being taken in the peculiar facts ofthis case, as the complainant/ first-informant ofthe FIR in question is himselfnow an accused in this case and there is no public witness in the list ofwitnesses filed along with the charge sheet. Since the impugned order discloses utter non-application of mind, therefore, instead ofthis Court calling for the record to find out as to whether there is any prima facie material against petitioners or not, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to direct the trial court to hear petitioners afresh on the point of charge.
These two petitions are accordingly allowed and impugned order of
30^ March, 2013 is set aside with direction to trial court to hear petitioners afresh on the point ofcharge and to pass aspeaking order to at least deal with the requirement of statutory compliance of Section 195
Cr.P.C. being there or not and toprimafacie disclose as to on what basis petitioners have been called upon to face trial.
Cvl Rev. P. No.287/2013 ^ With aforesaid observations, the above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master to counsel for petitioners.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2013 r Crl Rev. P. No.287/2013 Page 4
CrI. Rev. P. No.288/2013
13.05.2013 Crl.M.A. No.5995/2013 in Crl.Rev. P. No. 287/2013
Crl.M.A. No.5997/2013 in CrLRev. P. No. 288/2013
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
CrI. Rev. P. No.287/2013 Crl Rev. P. No.288/2013
Page 1 2013:DHC:8504 Boththe applications are disposed of.
CrLRev. P. No. 287/2013 & CrLM.A. No.5996/2013
CrLRev. P. No. 288/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.5998/2013
In the above captioned two petitions, the impugned order is of 30''^
March, 2013 vide which petitioner- Tarun has been called upon to face trial for offence under Section 120 B r/w Sections 392 & 182 of the IPG and petitioner- Khurshid has been called upon to face trial for offence under Sections 452/392/34 of the IPG.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondent-State.
. With the consent of both sides, the above captioned two petitions are taken up for hearing together, as they pertain to one incident.
Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order of30^ March, 2013 is not only cryptic but erroneously records that petitioner - Tarun is not to face trial for offence under Section 392/34 of the IPG, whereas he has been called to face trial for offence under Section
392 ofthe IPG with the aid of 120 B ofthe IPG by the very same order
^ and that the ingredients ofoffence for which petitioners have been called to face trial, are lacking. Itis also asserted by learned senior counsel for petitioners that there is no complaint in writing under Section 195 ofthe
Gr.P.G. for offence under Section 182 ofthe IPG qua petitioner - Tarun, which vitiates the impugned order and so, itdeserves to be set aside.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State concedes that the impugned order is quite cryptic. However, it is
Crl. Rev. P. No.287/2013 submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that there is sufficient material on record to justify the impugned order calling upon petitioners to face trial for the offences alleged.
A revisional court has to see whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity or not. Abare perusal of the impugned order does not disclose as to whether any complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. was filed qua petitioner- Tarun to prosecute him for offence under Section 182 ofthe IPG. This is an error which is apparent on the face ofrecord. Trial court is required to disclose in the order offraming charge as to primafacie what is the material on record on the basis of which petitioners have been called upon to face trial for offences in question. Such aview is being taken in the peculiar facts ofthis case, as the complainant/ first-informant ofthe FIR in question is himselfnow an accused in this case and there is no public witness in the list ofwitnesses filed along with the charge sheet. Since the impugned order discloses utter non-application of mind, therefore, instead ofthis Court calling for the record to find out as to whether there is any prima facie material against petitioners or not, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to direct the trial court to hear petitioners afresh on the point of charge.
These two petitions are accordingly allowed and impugned order of
30^ March, 2013 is set aside with direction to trial court to hear petitioners afresh on the point ofcharge and to pass aspeaking order to at least deal with the requirement of statutory compliance of Section 195
Cr.P.C. being there or not and toprimafacie disclose as to on what basis petitioners have been called upon to face trial.
Cvl Rev. P. No.287/2013 ^ With aforesaid observations, the above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master to counsel for petitioners.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2013 r Crl Rev. P. No.287/2013 Page 4
CrI. Rev. P. No.288/2013
JUDGMENT