Arshi Irshad vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2014 Latest Caselaw 2270 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        CRL.M.C. No.535/2014

                                   Date of decision: 5th May, 2014

ARSHI IRSHAD                                         ..... Petitioner
                               Through:   Mr. Mohd. Aas, Adv.

                      versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)           ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the
                            State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by Shri Narinder Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Delhi whereby Criminal Revision Petition No.206/2013 titled as 'State vs. Arshi Irshad' filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 25.12.2012 on the basis of statement of Mehfooz FIR No.132/2012 under Section 324 IPC was registered at P.S. Lahori Gate. The complainant has stated that on 12.9.2012 at about 8.30 p.m. he was having tea at shop No.656, Gali Saudagrana and the petitioner herein was going on his scooter and his scooter touched a bit. The complainant asked Arshi Irshad to drive carefully. On this, the petitioner started abusing and in the

meantime people gathered at the spot. The complainant felt that something like blade piercing his back and he ran out of the gali. After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offence under Section 324 IPC was filed.

4. Vide order dated 6.9.2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi the petitioner was discharged of the offence under section 324 IPC.

5. Against the said order, the State preferred the revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge (Central) Delhi. Vide order dated 2.1.2014 the said revision petition was allowed and the Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to frame charges against the petitioner.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged date of incident was 12.9.2012 and the complaint was filed on 13.9.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has not alleged that the petitioner had caused injury in his first statement made to police. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 25.12.2012. In the supplementary statement there is material improvement. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the other witnesses namely Haji Furqan, Danish, Shehzaed and Mohd. Anwar had made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that no such incident of assault or injury took place and hence charge under Section 324 IPC is not made out.

8. Learned APP for the State pointed out that the complainant Mahfooz Bhura in his statement dated 25.12.2012 has stated that Arshi Irshad had caused hurt to him by assaulting with blade in his back. Learned APP for the State has also pointed that the statement of Mr. Zuhaib under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.1.2013 and he has stated that at the time of incident he was present at the spot. The petitioner assaulted Mahfooz Bhura with a blade in his back, as a result of which blood was oozing and he took him to J.P.N. Hospital. In the MLC of the complainant, doctor has mentioned that patient was brought by Zuhaib.

9. At the stage of consideration on the point of charge the court is required to form a prima facie view and to point out if there appears a strong suspicion pointing out the guilt of the accused. The Court is not required to evaluate the evidence and probative value of evidence. The court is not required to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction.

10. In the instant case the complainant Mahfooz in his supplementary statement dated 25.12.2012 has named the petitioner as assailant who attacked him in his back with a blade, as a result of which it started bleeding. From the statement of complainant as well as the statement of Mr. Zuhaib prima facie case for the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out. So far as submissions of counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in recording statement of Mr. Zuhaib, the same is a matter of trial.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Central), Delhi.

The petition is dismissed.

Crl.M.A. No. 1790/2014 Dismissed as infructuous.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE May 5, 2014 aj