State v. Dhananjay @ Barood @ Pathan

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 24 , 2017 gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Order reserved on: 21st November,2017 Order pronounced on:24th November,2017 STATE ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for the State versus DHANANJAY @BAROOD @ PATHAN …Respondent Through: Mr. U.A. Khan, Adv. with Mr. Sunil Sagar and Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Advs. CORAM: % HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. The present Revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Additional Session Judge (hereinafter referred 'ASJ'), Shahdara/Karkardooma Courts in FIR No. 243/2014, under Section 392/ 397/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 'IPC') whereby the respondent was discharged from the offences under Section 392/ 397/ 34 IPC registered at Police Station Jagatpuri. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 24.04.2014, the complaint was lodged by one Ms. Deepti Uppal alleging that on 24.04.2014 around 10.05am while she was buying flowers outside the temple, two persons riding on the motorcycle without wearing helmet came from the side of the Vijay Chowk, and snatched her gold chain. As they fled away towards the Veer Bazar, she ran after them but the pillion rider showed her something like pistol due to which she withdrew chasing. Thereafter, on 28.04.2014, the respondent was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The co-accused Shakil was arrested in another FIR and was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who made disclosure statement that they have sold the gold chain. Since the complaint showed her inability to identify accused, he was released from the present case. The petitioner refused to take part in the TIP proceedings and was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 392/397/34 IPC. The cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and vide order dated 24.11.2014, the respondent herein was discharged of all charges. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court had erred in passing the said order as the same is based on conjectures and surmises; that the statement of the complainant, refusal to take part in TIP proceedings as well as the other corroborating evidence is sufficient to frame charges against the respondent; that at the stage of framing of charges, the court cannot examine or assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution; that to substantiate its case, he had placed reliance on State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj and State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 40. At this juncture, the said order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Trial Court had passed the said order after considering all the materials placed on record, and therefore it suffers from no infirmity; that apart from disclosure statement of the respondent, there is no other evidence against the respondent; that the valid ground for not participating in the TIP proceedings has been explained by the respondent; that the petitioner has give three contradictory statements with regard to the identification of the accused(s)/respondent; that the story of the prosecution is solely based on the assumptions of the disclosure statement, as to who was driving the bike and who was the pillion driver; that on the basis of such vagueness in the statement of the prosecution, the present petition is not maintainable. 5. The submissions made by the both the parties have been considered and the records have been perused. 6. Before adverting to the question raised in the revision petition for and against framing of charges under different provisions, it has to be clearly kept in view that a revisional Court must not interfere with the findings of a Trial Court on the ground of insufficiency or otherwise of the material on record, so as