Delhi High Court
Baijnath Dubey & Anr vs Nct Of Delhi on 6 February, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th February, 2013
+ CRL. M.C. 466/2013
BAIJNATH DUBEY & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.B. Tripathi, Advocate
versus
NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioners invoke inherent powers of the Court for rehearing on
charge which was ordered to be framed against the Petitioners by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate("M.M.") by an order dated 22.06.2007.
2. The Petitioners plea is that on an Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
moved by the two co-accused(who were arrested later on), the DCP
(Licensing) has informed that "Hindustan People" is a newspaper
registered with the Registrar of Newspapers and "North East Times" has
been de-blocked by the Registrar of Newspapers. It is urged that in view
of this, the offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 IPC could not have
been ordered to be framed against the Petitioners.
3. A Revision Petition under Section 397/399 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was preferred by the Petitioners for issuing directions to the
learned M.M. for rehearing the case on the matter of framing charges.
The Petition, however, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge("A.S.J.") on the ground that even if the report of the DCP
(Licensing) was provided to the Petitioners on 06.08.2012, the same did
not entitle them to rehearing of the framing of charge. The learned A.S.J.
held that there was no ground for condonation of delay. The Revision
Petition was accordingly dismissed.
4. FIR No.76/2007 was registered on 16.03.2007 in Police Station
Chitranjan Park on the basis of complaint made by Phool Singh S/o Daya
Ram. The English transcript of the FIR has been placed by the
Petitioners on the paper book. The complainant was a deliveryman
(supplying gas cylinders on a TSR). He was allegedly intercepted by the
Petitioners and their two associates on 16.03.2007. The Petitioners and
their associates demanded a sum of `10,000/- from the complainant for
not highlighting his activities of stealing gas from the gas cylinders.
Since the complainant did not possess that amount, they robbed him of
`2,500/- which was being carried by him (the complainant) at that time.
The Petitioners projected themselves as Press Reporters of Hindustan
Press. The allegations made in the FIR are extracted hereunder:
"....Today on 16.03.2007 at about 1:00 p.m. I took 22 gas
cylinders from Kalkaji Gas Service in my TSR and reached in
Cr Park for delivery. After delivering cylinder in D-704 when I
reached near H-1520 in H-Block, CR Park and, when I opened
the back gate of the TSR, four persons came in Indica Car
No.DL 8CG 7982 and told me that you have taken out gas(from
the cylinder). They also had video camera with them and
started threatening me and projected them as press reporters of
Hindustan Press. Names of two persons was revealed as (1)
Baijnath Dubey (S/o) Kanta Prasad Dubey (R/o) A-8 Sanjay
Park, Shakar Pur, Delhi and (2) Pawan Kumar Kashyap (S/o)
Niranjan Lal (R/o) 24/260, Trilok Puri, Delhi. The other two
persons ran away and who names and addresses were told as
(i) Sanjay Tiwari (S/o) Om Prakash (R/o) A-8, Sanjay Park,
Shakar Pur, Delhi and (ii) Shahid (R/o) near Gurudwara,
Block-35, Trilok Puri, Delhi, whom I can identify if brought
before me, forcibly took out two filled up cylinders and started
making video film after putting the cylinders on the ground and
they started saying that we will publish this fact in the
newspaper and we will defame you and they started demanding
`10,000/- for not doing so. They said that if you do not pay
`10,000/- you may even be killed. They further said there was
no need to raise alarm. These persons had taken money from
me on earlier occasions also but I did not complain on account
of fear. Today on account of fear only I gave them `2,500/-
(which consisted one hundred rupees notes) from my pocket.
Baijnath took `2,500/- from my hands and said this amount will
not do, arrange for the balance amount of `7,500/-. I
telephoned my brother. After some time my brother Amar
Singh, who does the work of gas supply, came. Other persons
in the vicinity also came near us and asked what was the matter
and I pleaded with them that these persons claim to be press
reports and are demanding from me `10,000/- under threat.
Hearing this people got enraged and started beating these four
persons and somebody hurled stones which hit these persons.
Meanwhile two of them ran away from the spot and my brother
Amar Singh caught hold of Baijnath and Pawan Kumar. Right
hand side rear glass of the aforesaid Indica car also got
damaged. Meanwhile police reached over there and public
dispersed. The aforesaid persons took money from me after
threatening me and pretending to be press persons...."
5. It is well settled that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code are to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and not as a
matter of routine. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
are meant to add ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice or to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
6. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners as per the report
obtained from the Registrar of Newspapers by the DCP (Licensing), the
title of the newspaper "Hindustan People" and "North East Times" were
cleared by the Registrar of Newspapers. This information does not call
for rehearing on the framing of the charge against the Petitioners for more
than one reason. First, it will be seen during the course of the trial as to
whether the Petitioners were really connected with Hindustan Press and
what was that Hindustan Press? Second, in a warrant case instituted on a
police report when the charges are framed against an accused under
Section 240 of the Code, the prosecution is required to produce its
evidence and the accused to produce his/her defence. Nothing in the
Code provides for rehearing on the matter of framing of the charge.
Third, the main thrust of the allegations against the Petitioners is
committing the robbery upon the complainant. Since on the basis of the
allegations levelled by the complainant, the Petitioners cannot seek
discharge from the case, it would be only an exercise in futility to allow
the Petitioners a rehearing and that too in exercising of the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In the circumstances, I am
not inclined to interfere with the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the
learned A.S.J.
7. Consequently, the Petition stands dismissed.
8. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 06, 2013
pst
