Aman Sahi vs State & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 5295 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               CRL.M.C. 2946/2013 & Crl.M.A.15833/2013

                           Date of Decision: 19th November, 2013
       AMAN SAHI                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through:        Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Swati
                                          Gupta, Advs.

                          versus

       STATE & ANR                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through:        Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the
                                          State.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                                   JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated

18.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby

the order dated 02.02.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate

was modified and direction was given for framing additional charges

against the petitioner u/s 307/506 IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 17.02.2012 the petitioner

got married with respondent no.2 in accordance with Hindu rites and

rituals. A complaint was made by respondent no.2 with Crime Against

Women Cell (CAW), Pitampura Delhi on the basis of which FIR

No.214/06 u/s 498/406/34 IPC was registered with P.S. Mangolpuri,

Delhi against petitioner and his family members. The charge-sheet was

submitted before Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. After hearing

arguments on charge, except for the petitioner, all the other accused

persons were discharged and order for framing of charge for offences u/s

498A IPC qua the petitioner was passed. Respondent no.1/State filed a

criminal revision 60/12 u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C before the Additional

Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi. After hearing learned counsel for

the parties, the revision petition was disposed of and the order passed by

learned Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld. However, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge directed framing of additional charges against

the petitioner u/s 307/506 IPC besides the charge already framed against

him u/s 498A IPC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. This part of

the order has been assailed by the petitioners in this petition.

3. It was submitted that the order of framing additional charge by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction

and is unsustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as the petitioner neither

inflicted any injury nor made any attempt to cause any physical harm to

respondent no.2. Even the complaint filed by respondent no.2 before the

CAW Cell on the basis of which FIR was registered did not disclose any

act of the petitioner against respondent no.2 which could make him

liable to be prosecuted u/s 307/506 IPC. Moreover the State had also

not prayed for framing of the charge u/s 307/506 IPC. The revision was

filed only against that part of the order vide which the accused persons

other than the petitioner were discharged. In the absence of any ground

urged by the revisionist, the Court committed a grave illegality by suo

moto directing the framing of the charge against the petitioner u/s

307/506 IPC, that too, in the absence of any material in the charge-sheet

with respect to the said allegations, as such, it was submitted that the

part of the order whereby additional charges were ordered to be framed

against the petitioner be set aside.

4. I have heard Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.

Navin Kumar Jha, learned APP for the State and have perused the

record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the averments

made in the petition for submitting that the Trial Court had discharged

the other accused and had ordered for framing of charge qua the

petitioner only u/s 498A IPC. Feeling aggrieved by this order, State

preferred a revision, but that was only qua the discharge of other accused

persons. It was not urged in the revision petition that any additional

charge is liable to be framed against the husband. Moreover there was

no independent evidence collected by the prosecution to substantiate the

charge u/s 307/506 IPC. No complaint was made by the complainant

nor was she medically examined in regard to the incident. That being

so, even otherwise the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not

justified in ordering the framing of additional charges qua the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that an additional

charge can be framed against the accused at any stage of the proceedings

and there is no infirmity in the order which calls for interference.

7. I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective

submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record.

8. Section 216 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 provides for alterations or

additions of any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced.

Power of the Court to add any charge at any stage of the proceedings is

not even challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner. However his

submissions are confined to the effect that the revision filed by the State

was only qua the other accused persons who were discharged by the

learned Trial Court and State was not seeking addition of any charge qua

the petitioner. Further that no independent investigation was made in

regard to the allegations made by the complainant regarding section

307/506 IPC. A perusal of FIR recorded on the basis of complaint made

by the complainant reveals that besides other allegations she had

specifically stated that on 10.06.2004, her husband had tried to

strangulate her at the instigation of his parents and sister. She had barely

saved her life. At other places it was alleged that her husband

manhandled her parents and threatened them by saying "I will kill you

and set all your three daughters on fire". Her father called the police

and with the help of police she took her daughter and went back to her

parents house. By referring to these allegations, learned Additional

Sessions Judge directed framing of the charge u/s 307/506 IPC against

the petitioner. Prima facie the specific allegations attracted Section 307

and 506 IPC. Although the Investigating Officer of the case chose to

file the charge sheet only u/s 498A/406 IPC but Court has ample power

to frame charge for any other offence which are borne out from the

material on record. Moreover, even if the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate did not frame specific charge u/s 307 & 506 IPC and the

State also did not request for framing of these charges, the Court has

scrutinised the material available on record and if, prima facie, the

allegations attracts the provision of any other offence, then it is duty

bound to frame charge under those sections. There were specific

allegations made by the complainant which could not be brushed aside.

The mere fact that no independent evidence was collected by the

Investigating Officer in regard to these facts was not sufficient not to

frame charges under these Sections because at the stage of framing

charge, only a prima facie view is required to be taken and not that

ultimately the allegations will lead to conviction or not. That being so,

since the Court had ample power u/s 216 of the Code of Criminal

procedure to add any charge, therefore, if the learned Additional

Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned Trial Court for framing

charge u/s 307 and 506 IPC, no infirmity can be found in the same. That

being so, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 19, 2013 as