Delhi High Court
Shalini Singh vs State & Ors on 9 December, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 9th December, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3864/2015
SHALINI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Vishal Gosain with
Ms. Indrani Tyagi, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP for State
Mr. D P Singh and Mr. D S Kohli,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ CRL.M.C. 3864/2015
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks
modification/amendment of the order on charge dated 14.10.2014
and charge so framed dated 16.3.2015 under Section 498A r/w.
Section 34 IPC and consequently, seek direction for framing of
charges under Sections 406/323/324/307 IPC, apart from 498-A/34
IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that on 16.5.2011 at about 6 a.m, when the petitioner was brewing
tea in the kitchen, the respondent no.4 abused her and told her to get
out of the house. When she refused to leave the house, the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 threatened by saying, "aj isko theek hi
kar detein hein." Accordingly, respondent no.2 proceeded to take
the tea from the hand of the petitioner and then smashed it on her
forehead 2-3 times and punched her face. But petitioner in fear of
her life, ran away from the kitchen and call the police station. Since
the petitioner was bleeding heavily, the respondent no. 4 said,"
achha hai aaj mar hi jayegi kyonki glass par to iske hi hathon ke
nishan hein." Thereafter, the police arrived and the petitioner was
taken to the DDU Hospital and MLC was conducted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
injuries on her head were grievous in nature as she required 23-24
stitches on her face. Despite, the fact learned trial court vide order
on charge dated 14.10.2014, directed to frame the charges against
the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 498A
IPC and under Section 324 IPC r/w. Section 34 IPC.
4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the
order dated 14.10.2015, whereby the learned trial Court framed
charges only under Section 498A/34.
5. He further submits that keeping in view the injuries and
threat given by respondent no. 2, the learned trial Court ought to
have framed the charge under Section 307 IPC.
6. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner to the extent that the learned trial Court vide order dated
14.10.2014 directed the charges to be framed under Section
498A/324/34 IPC. However, inadvertently framed charges only
under Section 498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed
to frame charge against the respondents for the offences under
Section 324 IPC pursuant to the order dated 14.10.2014.
7. Recording the submission of the counsel for the petitioner,
fact remain that the aforesaid FIR in question vide no. 219/2011
was registered in the year 2011. The petitioner was well aware that
the police did not register the said FIR either under Section 307 or
308 IPC, despite the injuries received by the petitioner on forehead.
However, the petitioner had not taken any steps. Moreover, there is
no argument advanced by the petitioner while arguments on charge
before the trial court.
8. Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner
did not take any steps initially nor argued before the trial Court.
However, it was the duty of the trial Court to pass the proper order,
keeping in view the material available on record.
9. On perusal of the FIR, the complainant stated that she was
holding glass and smashed it on her forehead 2-3 times and also
beaten her by giving fist blows on her face, but she ran away from
the kitchen and gave the call on no. 100 as she was having heavy
bleeding from her forehead.
10. It is further stated that thereafter, she was taken to the DDU
hospital. The MLC was prepared to this effect but the fact remain
that the police filed status report before the trial Court whereby
stated that the complainant came to the police station who stated
that when she was taking tea in the morning and her mother-in-law
was preparing tea, some altercation was taken place between them.
Her husband S P Singh was sitting on the chair. He put his hand on
her hand due to which the glass of chai fell down and said glass hit
my forehead due to which she received injury. Since the incident
was between the husband and wife, therefore, the SHO concerned
tried to pacify and directed the ASI to get the MLC report collected.
Thereafter, the concerned police officer tried to contact the
complainant for taking the MLC. However, she did not come
forward. Finally, she refused not to join the investigation.
11. On perusal of the status report filed by the police and
contents of DD entries No. 55B 35 B and 62 B dated 28.6.2011,
3.7.2011 and 11.7.2011 respectively, it seems that initially, the
petitioner never wanted to take action against respondents. Thus,
she did not join the investigation. As per the opinion on the MLC,
the injury is minor with sharp object. Accordingly, trial court
directed to frame charge under Section 498A/324/34 IPC.
12. There is a disputed facts on which giving opinion of this
Court would not be proper as the case is pending for trial. Even it is
not clear whether the injury is caused by respondents or self-
inflicted. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case,
I direct the trial Court to amend the charge order and frame the
charge against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 under Section 324 IPC in
addition to charge already framed.
13. Needless to state that if evidence come on record for the
greater offence then either the Court may take steps suo moto or by
petitioner by moving application as per the law.
14. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Crl. M.A. 13725/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 09, 2015
P/jg
