CRL.M.C./2666/2017 of NAWAL SINGH Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2666/2017NAWAL SINGH..... PetitionerThroughMr. Pradeep Teotia and Mr. SiddharthChaudhary, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI..... RespondentThroughMs. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SINagender Nagar, P.S. Sarita Vihar

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%08.11.2017

Petitioner is uncle of husband of the complainant Ms. Rachna. FIR no.193/2010 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered at Police StationSarita Vihar on the complaint of Ms. Rachna. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused including the petitioner under Sections498-A/406/34 IPC.At the time of framing of charge, learned MetropolitanMagistrate scrutinized the charge-sheet and entire material placed on recordincluding the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and held thata, prima facie, case was also made out for commission of offences punishableunder Sections 323/34 read with Sections 506/34 IPC against Surender(husband), Dayawati (mother-in-law), Jitender (jeth), Reena (nanad) and

petitioner. As regards offence under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC is concerned,petitioner has not been charged.

Aggrieved by framing of charges against him under Sections 323/34 IPCread with Sections 506/34 IPC, petitioner preferred revision petition beforethe Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, which has been dismissed by theimpugned order dated 15[th]May, 2017.

That is how, petitioner is before the Court by way of present petitionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Trial court as well as revisional court have carefully marshalled theentire materials placed on record and returned categorical finding that a,prima facie, case was made out against the petitioner for having committed theoffences punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC read with Sections 506/34 IPC.It is trite law that at the time of framing of charge, entire material collectedduring the investigation, has to be considered including the statements ofwitnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and recording thereof give rise to gravesuspicion against the accused for having committedthe offences alleged,charge shall be framed.

There are concurrent findings of facts returned by the two courts onscrutiny of the material collected during the investigation and available onrecord.Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot partake status of an

appeal or for that matter revision. This Court can step-in and intervene onlyif it is demonstrated that the continuance of the proceedings will be abuse ofprocess of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.

In this case, I have perused the FIR and charge-sheet and find that thereare specific allegations against the petitioner that he had taken out pistol andhit the butt thereof on the head of father of the complainant, resulting injuriesto him. MLC of father of complainant is also there. Petitioner also threatenedthat in case anybody tried to intervene, he would shoot him. The statements ofthe complainant and injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. complied with the MLCcannot be ignored at the time of framing of charge only because petitioner saysthat he was not present in Delhi, which otherwise is his defence. The abovenoted material gives rise to strong suspicious against the petitioner for havingcommitted the offences for which he has been charged with.

For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed.

NOVEMBER 08, 2017/r.bararia

A.K. PATHAK, J.