Full Text
Translation output
$-54 =1:
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 342/2011
RAJESHWAS @ RAJU Petitioner
Through Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 342/2011
RAJESHWAS @ RAJU Petitioner
Through Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Ravi Kant PS Roop Nagar
Through Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Ravi Kant PS Roop Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA O R PER 01.08.2011
CrI.
M.A. No. 8903/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CrI.
M.A. No. 8903/2011 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.REV.P. 342/2011 & Crl.
M.A. No. 8904/2011 (Stay)
With this petition Petitioner challenges the order framing charge for offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC against him. The allegations of the prosecution in the nut shell are that complainant Pardeep Goel got registered an FIR wherein it was alleged that he was running a business of yarn atGhanta Ghar. On lO'^ July, 2010 at 8p.m. he along with his brother
Narender Goel and his father Naval Kishore Goel came to their house as usual. At the corner of the street there is a shop of Brijwasi Halwai, where
Crl.Rev. P. No. 342/2011 • - Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:19846 < articles of the shop had been kept, outside the shop as were being done daily. He, his brother and his father told them to keep the articles of the shop inside so as not to cause them a problem to drive the car. On this
Rajeev @ Tinloiwho was sitting inside the shop had an altercation with him and he poured boiling oil on the complainant resulting into burn injuries on his chest and thighs. Thereafter also they did not stop and said that they would teach lesson and on this Rajeev, Ganju @ Amit, Rildd and Sunny all brothers caught hold of Pardeep Goel and his brother and started beating them on the street. The complainant and his brother received injuries on their head. In the meantime, complainant's son Tanuj Goel also reached there to save them but Raju i.e the Petitioner herein of Gujrati Namlceen who was standing there stopped Tanuj. But Ainit, Rikld and Sunny gave beatings to Tanuj Goel, who also received injuries on his head.
Learned counsel for the'Petitioner contends that the only allegation against the Petitioner is that a fight was going on, when Tanuj wanted to intervene, the Petitioner as a good neighbor intervened and stopped him from entering into the fight. Thus, no charge under Section 308/34 IPG can be framed against him.
I have gone through the FIR and statements of the witnesses. A
Crl.Rev. P. No. 342/2011 Page 2 of3 V perusal of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses shows that the only role attributed to the Petitioner is of stopping Tanuj Goel from intervening in the fight. However, despite that the other accused i.e. Raju, Amit, Rikld and Sunny gave beatings to them. There is no allegation of either exhortation or catching hold or of beating against the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 21^"^ May, 2011 is therefore set aside to the extent that it frames charge against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 308/34
IPG.
The petition and the application are disposed of. Order dasti.
'MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 01,2011 'vld' Crl.Rev. P. No. 342/2011 of3
M.A. No. 8904/2011 (Stay)
With this petition Petitioner challenges the order framing charge for offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC against him. The allegations of the prosecution in the nut shell are that complainant Pardeep Goel got registered an FIR wherein it was alleged that he was running a business of yarn atGhanta Ghar. On lO'^ July, 2010 at 8p.m. he along with his brother
Narender Goel and his father Naval Kishore Goel came to their house as usual. At the corner of the street there is a shop of Brijwasi Halwai, where
Crl.Rev. P. No. 342/2011 • - Page 1 of3
2011:DHC:19846 < articles of the shop had been kept, outside the shop as were being done daily. He, his brother and his father told them to keep the articles of the shop inside so as not to cause them a problem to drive the car. On this
Rajeev @ Tinloiwho was sitting inside the shop had an altercation with him and he poured boiling oil on the complainant resulting into burn injuries on his chest and thighs. Thereafter also they did not stop and said that they would teach lesson and on this Rajeev, Ganju @ Amit, Rildd and Sunny all brothers caught hold of Pardeep Goel and his brother and started beating them on the street. The complainant and his brother received injuries on their head. In the meantime, complainant's son Tanuj Goel also reached there to save them but Raju i.e the Petitioner herein of Gujrati Namlceen who was standing there stopped Tanuj. But Ainit, Rikld and Sunny gave beatings to Tanuj Goel, who also received injuries on his head.
Learned counsel for the'Petitioner contends that the only allegation against the Petitioner is that a fight was going on, when Tanuj wanted to intervene, the Petitioner as a good neighbor intervened and stopped him from entering into the fight. Thus, no charge under Section 308/34 IPG can be framed against him.
I have gone through the FIR and statements of the witnesses. A
Crl.Rev. P. No. 342/2011 Page 2 of3 V perusal of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses shows that the only role attributed to the Petitioner is of stopping Tanuj Goel from intervening in the fight. However, despite that the other accused i.e. Raju, Amit, Rikld and Sunny gave beatings to them. There is no allegation of either exhortation or catching hold or of beating against the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 21^"^ May, 2011 is therefore set aside to the extent that it frames charge against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 308/34
IPG.
The petition and the application are disposed of. Order dasti.
'MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 01,2011 'vld' Crl.Rev. P. No. 342/2011 of3
JUDGMENT