Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Delhi High Court
Ajit Singh Chauhan vs State Thr. Thr. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 April, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 CRL.M.A. 6665/2022
AJIT SINGH CHAUHAN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tarun Sharma, Mr.Abid Ali
Mr.Manek Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE THR. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Satinder Singh Bawa, APP
SI Sachin Kumar, PS Alipur.
Mr.Jagat Rana, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’)
challenging the Order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-04, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ASJ’) in
Criminal Revision No. 107/2021, titled Ajit Singh Chauhan v.
Government of NCT of Delhi, dismissing the said Revision
Petition.
2. The petitioner, by way of the above Revision Petition had
challenged the Order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01), North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned
‘Trial Court’) in the criminal case arising out of FIR 239/2017
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 1 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
registered at Police Station: Alipur, Rohini District, Delhi,
framing charges under Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) against the petitioner
herein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his
submissions, confines the challenge in the present petition only
to the charges framed under Sections 323/509/34 IPC.
4. The above FIR was registered inter alia on an allegation
that on 06.12.2015 at about 4:00 PM, the complainant along
with her father had gone to her matrimonial home. It is alleged
that the moment they entered the matrimonial home, the
complainant’s father-in-law, that is, the petitioner herein,
abused the complainant and her father in the ‘dirtiest language’
and threatened to get them killed if they ever approached them.
It is alleged that the petitioner then prompted the complainant’s
sister-in-law to beat her and throw her out of the house. In the
FIR it is stated that the complainant was then beaten by her
sister-in-law and by the petitioner. The complainant states that
on her way back she got herself medically examined for the
injuries resulting from the beatings given ‘by my sister-in-law
Anjali alias Sweety’. Based on the said allegations, the charges
also under Sections 323/509/34 of the IPC have been framed
against the petitioner herein.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
prior to the filing of the complaint, on the basis of which the
FIR was registered, the complainant had filed a complaint with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 2 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
the SHO, Police Station: Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh,
wherein, she had inter alia described the same incident of
06.12.2015, as under:-
“On 06/12/2015, I had gone to my
matrimonial home with my father and at about
04:00 PM when I entered my matrimonial
home, my father-in-law and mother-in-law
abused me in most filthy language and
prompted my sister-in-law Sweety alais Anjali
to beat me and I was beaten up by my sister-
in-law Anjali. They threw me out of my
matrimonial home.
On my way back home, I got myself medically
examined for the injuries resulting from
beatings given by my sister-in law. Copy of the
MLC bearing no. B5636/15 dated 06/12/2015
issued by GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden is
attached herewith.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. He submits that even in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., though she tried to implicate her husband
in the alleged beating, she did not name the petitioner as the
person who had given her any beating.
7. He submits that, therefore, clearly the allegations of
beating were against the sister-in-law Anjali alias Sweety, and
not against the petitioner herein. He submits that Anjali alias
Sweety has already been discharged of the said offence by the
learned ASJ by way of the Impugned Order itself. He submits
that the said Order has not been challenged either by the State
or by the complainant.
8. As far as the charge under Section 509 IPC is concerned,
he submits that barring a vague allegation of the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 3 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
having abused the complainant, there are no specific details of
the same given in the FIR or even in the chargesheet. He
submits that a vague charge, therefore, cannot be framed against
the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned
counsel for the complainant submit that the petitioner has been
specifically named for the incident of 06.12.20215. They submit
that the allegations are also supported by the MLC of
07.12.2015, which was conducted at the GTB Hospital,
Shahdara, Delhi and shows the injuries suffered by the
complainant. They further submit that, in any case, the
contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner would be a matter of trial and cannot be a ground to
discharge the petitioner at this present stage. The learned APP
also points out that a charge under Section 506 Part-II IPC
needs to be framed against the petitioner based on the
allegations made in the complaint.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
11. As is evident from the above, post the incident, the first
complaint was made by the complainant to the SHO, Police
Station: Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, wherein she
named only her sister-in-law Anjali alias Sweety as the person
who had given her beatings on the day of the alleged incident,
that is, 06.12.2015. It is only in the second complaint, which
was filed on 14.06.2016, that is, more than six months after the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 4 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
date of the incident, that the complainant for the first time
named the petitioner along with Anjali as the persons who had
given her the beating. In the later part of the said complaint/FIR
itself, she, however, again attributes the beatings only to Anjali.
Even at the time of the MLC, she gives the history of being
beaten by Anjali alone. Thereafter, in her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., she named only the sister-in-law, however,
this time added her husband Anirudh Chauhan as also the
person who had given her beatings. This statement was
recorded on 15.07.2017. Anjali alias Sweety has since been
discharged by the Order passed by the learned ASJ. The said
order has since gained finality and has not been challenged by
the complainant or the State.
12. In my view, mere self-serving statements of the
complainant cannot be a sufficient reason to proceed against the
petitioner, especially in light of these contradictory
stands/statements of the complainant herself.
13. As far as the charge under Section 509 IPC is concerned,
again, it is based only on a vague and generalized allegation of
the petitioner having abused the complainant when she came
back to her matrimonial house along with her father. A charge
cannot be framed on such a vague and generalized allegation.
14. This Court, in Hari Kishen Sharma v. State Anr. 2018
SCC OnLine Del 11456, has held as under:
“15. The allegations made by the
prosecutrix of the offence under Section 506,
509 are as vague as they can be. Prosecutrix
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 5 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
has not stated as to what were the words
uttered or gestures, actions or threat extended
which would satisfy the requirement of
Section 506 and 509 IPC.
xxxx
17. The Supreme Court in Dilawar Balu
Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC
135 has held as under:
“12. Now the next question is whether
a prima facie case has been made out
against the appellant. In exercising powers
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the settled position of law is
that the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under the
said section has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has
been made out; where the materials placed
before the court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained the court will be fully
justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial; by and large if
two views are equally possible and the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully
justified to discharge the accused, and in
exercising jurisdiction under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as
a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the court but should not make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence as if he
was conducting a trial (see Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3
SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609]).”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 6 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
18. For accused to face trial for an offence
there has to be grave suspicion and not mere
suspicion or an allegation. In the present case
apart from bald allegations, evidence does not
reveal grave suspicion of the petitioner having
committed the offence under Section 506
or 509 IPC.
19. Supreme Court in Inder Mohan
Goswami (supra) has laid down that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution and Courts cannot be utilized for
any oblique purpose and where in the opinion
of the court chances of an ultimate conviction
is bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue. Where the allegations in the first
information report or complaint even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute the
offence alleged or make out a case against the
accused or where the criminal proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fide or where
the proceedings are maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge, the proceedings
are liable to be quashed.”
15. As far as the submission of the learned APP that a
charge under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC needs to be framed
against the petitioner, this may be a matter to be decided by the
learned Trial Court. I need not express any opinion on this at
this stage.
16. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed to this extent.
The Order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court
and the Order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned ASJ, only
insofar as they direct framing of charges under Sections
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 7 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
323/509/34 IPC against the petitioner, are hereby set aside.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
APRIL 1, 2024/rv/AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1543/2022 Page 8 of 8
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:04.04.2024
19:53:15
