Nazar Chaudhary & Anr. vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 5479 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
         +     CRL.Rev.P. No.723/2015 & Crl.M.A. No.16415/2015
                                      Date of Decision : 23rd August, 2016

    NAZAR CHAUDHARY & ANR.                                ..... PETITIONER
                         Through      Mr.Raj Kishore, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                               ..... RESPONDENT
                  Through             Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the

petitioners for revision against the impugned order dated 18th April, 2015

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Central), Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi, in a case arising out of FIR No.27/2014 whereby Charge

under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against

the petitioners.

2. A thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case is that on 8th February,

2014, a written complaint was made by Ms.Nikhat Fatima, wife of

Mr.Mehdi Hassan in Police Station Jama Masjid stating therein that on 7th

February, 2014, her husband left home in the evening for visiting Braham

Puri in his car and when he did not return home, she made a call to him

upon which he told her that he would come. The complainant, thereafter

slept and her husband did not come till morning. On the next day at

about 9.45 a.m., her husband made a call to the complainant stating that

he and one other person named Pappu, had been kidnapped by Irfan Lala,

Sakib and Nazim Chaudhary at about 4.30 a.m. in the morning and that

they were demanding a ransom of Rs.20.00 lakhs for the release. The

husband of the complainant also stated her to arrange the money and

come to Dasna Masoori Road.

3. Thereafter, at about 10.00 a.m., the complainant called Nasir Bhai,

one of the friends of Mehdi Hassan and told him the entire incident. It is

stated that at about 10.00 p.m., the victims Mehdi Hassan and

[email protected] Ali were released by the kidnappers on assurance of

payment of Rs.20.00 lakhs by one Nasir.

4. It further transpires from the record that the husband of the

complainant in his statement to the police, stated that Tasleem,

[email protected], Shekib [email protected] and [email protected], Mohd. Shamim

(Photographer) and a person were already standing near the Biryani

Kiosk at Chandni Mahal when he along with Pappu, reached there in the

morning of 8th February, 2014. He further added that he was called by

Saleem who at pistol point, took him and his associate Pappu to the room

of one Mohd. Shamim when Tasleem asked him to arrange Rs.5,00,000/-

otherwise he would not spare him. In this act, Mohd. Shakib & Shamim

helped Tasleem. It transpires that [email protected] snatched Rs.1,00,000/-

which the victim Mehandi Hassan was carrying. It further transpires that

one young boy at the instance of Tasleem, who were in the office of

Nazar Choudhary, made a call to the wife of the victim and demanded

Rs.20.00 lakhs and upon protest, [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected] and Nazar Choudhary started beating the victim Mehandi

Hassan and Pappu. Thereafter, Mehdi Hassan called his wife and asked

for arrangement of demanded money when his friend Nasir also assured

Tasleem that they would pay the demanded money. Thereafter, the

victim Mehdi Hassan and Pappu were dropped at Red Fort by Irfan Lala

and Tasleem after assaulting them and robbing them of their belongings.

5. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the charge has wrongly been framed against the petitioners

on the ground that the person who was kidnapped made a very

categorical statement to the effect that the petitioners were not the

persons who were present or involved in kidnapping him from Delhi. It

is stated that the necessary ingredients for attracting the provision of

Section 364A are that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; kept

him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction and the

kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner

relies on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Vikram Singh @

Vicky & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2013 (16) SCC 450 & Jaswant

Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484 with connected appeals.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on

the other hand, vehemently opposed the grant of the present revision

petition on the ground that the petitioners were involved in the

commission of offence and have been rightly charged under Section 364-

A of the IPC.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length; gone through

the available records and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the

petitioners.

9. The impugned order dated 18th April, 2015 ordered for framing of

charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections

364A/395/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, accused Tasleem used

fire arm in commission of dacoity and subsequently, pistol loaded with

three live cartridges was recovered from his possession and a prima facie

case under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of

the Arms Act was also made out against him. The recovery of the looted

amount belonging to the victim Mehdi Hassan was made from the

accused Shehzada, Mohd. Shamim, Mohd. Shakib, Tasleem Ahmed,

Shezada [email protected] and prima facie case under Section 412 IPC was

made out against these accused.

10. For the purpose of this revision petition, this Court confines its

observation and decision to the accused/petitioners alone. The statement

of the victim Mehdi Hassan was recorded in which he stated that both the

petitioners were amongst the kidnappers. He specifically stated that he

was taken to a property dealer office at Dasna where both the petitioners

came and that this office was owned by petitioner no.1 Nazir Chaudhary.

In the statement of victim Mehdi Hassan, he further stated that ransom

talks were also made in front of the petitioners. Both the petitioners also

gave beating to the victims Mehdi Hassan and Pappu. Victim Mehdi

Hassan also stated that he and Pappu were taken back to Delhi and both

the petitioners alighted from the vehicle in the midway.

11. Statement of Rifaqat @ Pappu under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also

recorded during the course of investigation who also substantiated the

allegations made by Mehdi Hassan with regard to manner of their

kidnapping by the accused persons including the petitioners for ransom

and robbery of money and articles from them.

12. During investigation, it was also revealed that victims were

confined in the office of Nazar Chaudhary where Rashid Ali, petitioner

no.2 was also present at the time and that talks of ransom were also made

there. It was also stated by the victim Mehdi Hassan that out of the

looted amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.5,000/- were received by the Radhid

Ali, petitioner no.2 in Dasna office. Petitioner no.2/Rashid Ali refused to

join the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings.

13. The records available reflects that the petitioners were involved in

kidnapping and ransom of Rs.20,00,000/- as well as decoity of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the person of victim Mehdi Hassan.

14. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity, illegality

or perversity in the impugned order dated 18th April, 2015 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

15. Consequently, the present revision petition and application are

dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE AUGUST 23rd, 2016 aa