SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aman Mahajan vs State Of Union Territory … on 8 August, 2018

CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018 1


CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018
DATE OF DECISION :- August 08, 2018

Aman Mahajan …Petitioner


State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and another …Respondents


Present:- Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.


By way of filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

petitioner Aman Mahajan seeks quashing of order dated 8.2.2017 passed by

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Chandigarh in case titled as “State of U.T.

Versus Aman Mahajan” framing charge for offences under Sections 419,

465 IPC in F.I.R. No. 42 dated 14.3.2014 for offences under Sections

419/312/ 315 IPC at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh and challan dated

20.8.2016 presented against petitioner under Section 419 and 465 IPC as

well as order dated 9.5.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Chandigarh vide which Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner

challenging order dated 8.2.2017 was dismissed and charge for offences

under Section 419 and 465 IPC were maintained.

Interalia in the petition it is contended that petitioner Aman

Mahajan was married with Poonam-respondent no. 2 in the petition on

1 of 6
12-08-2018 22:31:36 :::
CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018 2

27.1.1999, however, with the passage of time their relations became

strained. Poonam Mahajan lodged F.I.R. no. 42 dated 14.3.2014 for

offences under Sections 312, 315 419 IPC with Police Station Sector 19,

Chandigarh. After completion of investigation challan against the accused

was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh for

offences under Sections 419, 465 IPC, whereas offences under Sections

312, 315 IPC were not made out. That on presentation of challan charge for

offences under Section 419, 465 IPC was framed against the accused on


The petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 felt aggrieved by the

order framing charge as such they filed Revision Petitions before the Court

of Sessions which were assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 9.5.2018. Revison Petition

filed by respondent no. 2 was also dismissed. According to the petitioner

earlier one Shweta Sharma had filed a false and frivolous complaint against

him on the basis of which respondent no. 2 had filed an F.I.R. No. 124 dated

18.10.2011 under Sections 498A, 323, 497, 506, 120B IPC registered at

Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula. Trial in the said F.I.R. has got started

in the Court of JMIC Panchkula.

During examination-in-chief and cross examination of Shweta

Sharma she stated that she had nothing to do with the complaint which was

filed under her signatures and she did not even read contents of the

complaint submitted under her signatures and that respondent no. 2 had

convinced her to file the complaint under her signatures to save matrimonial

2 of 6
12-08-2018 22:31:36 :::
CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018 3

life of respondent no. 2. Shweta Sharma had even made a statement before

the police stating that she had made the complaint under undue influence

and threat of respondent no. 2 and there after she got to know the truth, she

withdrew her complaint and that the allegations made in the complaint filed

by her are absolutely baseless. The petitioner while challenging the

impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh submits

that he has not taken into consideration the fact that respondent no.2, who

had got registered F.I.R. No. 42 dated 14.3.2014 is not a concerned party.

Respondent no. 2 is a complete stranger , therefore, the very registration of

the F.I.R. No. 42 and subsequent proceedings are illegal and invalid,

unjustified and unsustainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going

through the record.

The entire approach of the petitioner is erroneous. It is a settled

principle of criminal law that criminal machinery can be set into motion by

any person and locus standi does not have much relevance in such type of

proceedings. In the event of any offence having been committed any person

can report regarding commission of such offence to the law and

enforcement agencies. Similarly if a person aggrieved by the offence does

not opt to report the matter to law and enforcement agencies does not mean

that commission of such offence cannot be disclosed or reported by some

other person who might not have directly affected by the said offence.

Whole thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner has been

that Shweta Sharma had made a complaint under undue influence and threat

of respondent no. 2, which she had subsequently withdrawn. It is a matter of

3 of 6
12-08-2018 22:31:36 :::
CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018 4

evidence whether the complaint was made by Shweta Sharma under undue

influence and threat or voluntarily, therefore, framing of charge for offences

under Section 419 and 465 IPC cannot be faulted. Such order passed by the

trial Magistrate has been upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, who

had disposed of the Revision Petition. The relevant part of the order is

appended in para no. 6 is reproduced for ready reference :-

“The grouse of Aman Mahajan is that no charge under Sections
419 and 465 of IPC framed against him are made out against
him. On the other hand, Poonam Mahajan claimed that charge
sheet be amended and charges under Section 312, 313, 314,
315 and 468 read with Section 201 IPC be also framed against
the accused. The challan has been presented against the accused
under Section 419 and 465 IPC. Learned Magistrate while
taking cognizance of the offence framed the charges. It is to be
noted that the evidence and the material brought on record is
not be meticulously judged at the time of framing of charge. On
the strength of the above said well settled legal position, there
is no hindrance or hardship to come to a right conclusion that
prima facie case has been made out against the accused Aman
Mahajan to frame the charge on the basis of allegations levelled
by the prosecution. The Court is required to consider the police
report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and in case there are
sufficient grounds against the petitioner Aman Mahajan having
committed the offence, it can be said that prima facie there are
sufficient ingredients for which the charge under Sections 419
and 465 IPC was framed against him. It is well settled that
charge can be framed/amended at any stage, even after leading
the evidence by the prosecution. At this stage, no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned
Magistrate while framing charge against the accused has been
pointed out.”

4 of 6
12-08-2018 22:31:36 :::
CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018 5

Chapter 19 of Cr.P.C. deals with trial of warrant cases by

Magistrates. Section 239 Cr.P.C. deals with an eventuality when an accused

shall be discharged. It provides that if upon considering the police report

and documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and making such

examination, if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and

after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity considers the

charge to be groundless he shall discharge the accused and record his

reasons for so doing whereas Section 240 Cr.P.C. deals with framing of

charge directing that if on such consideration, examination if any and

hearing, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for assuming

that the accused has committed an offence triable under this chapter which

such Magistrate is competent to try and which under his influence could be

adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the

accused. The Magistrate at the stage of framing charge is not to see as to

whether the trial shall end in conviction or acquittal. He is just to satisfy

himself that sufficient material is there on the record for presuming that

accused had committed an offence. As per settled law the charge can be

framed on the basis of strong suspicion even. Section 482 Cr.P.C. deals with

saving of inherent powers of High Court. It provides that nothing in the

Court shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent powers of High Court

to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under

this Court or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice. The law is well settled that while exercising such

jurisdiction High Court is not to enter into probe regarding authenticity and

legality of the evidence available on record. Here I do not find that the

5 of 6
12-08-2018 22:31:36 :::
CRM-M No. 33191 of 2018 6

orders passed by the Courts below suffers from any such illegality, infirmity

or rather perverse or passed against settled principles of criminal law or

passed by the Courts acceding from jurisdiction amounting to abuse of

process of Court. Therfore, no interference there with while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for. Similarly challan has

been filed on completion of investigation and I do not find any reason to

quash the same. The petition is found to be without any merit and is

dismissed accordingly.

August 08, 2018

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
12-08-2018 22:31:36 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation