Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar Rastogi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 7 February, 2018
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4408/2017
PRAMOD KUMAR RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
Mr. Shariq Iqbal, Advocate for
respondent No.3
SI Om Prakash, PS Hauz Khas.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
07.02.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 4408/2017 & Crl.M.A.20424/2017 (for impleadment)
1. The petitioner impugns Order on Charge dated 08.01.2016,
wherein, charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section
325/354/506 IPC.
2. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the
impugned order is a Non-Speaking Order and no case is made out
against the petitioner for proceeding to frame charge. It is further
contended that the written argument and the defence of the petitioner
has not been considered at the time of framing of charge.
3. I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. The
Court, by the impugned order, has held as under:-
"Arguments advanced on point of charge on the LDOH
have been duly considered. Prima facie in the complaint
dt. 5.1.2007 complainant has alleged that accused
Pramod hit her on her nose, she fell down, her nose
started bleeding and then he hit her with her foot and in
the statement of the witnesses recorded under Sec. 161
CrPC allegations have been made against the accused
hitting complainant on her chest and threatening to kill
complainant and her family and hence from the
documents on record including MLC, it cannot be said
that the allegations against the accused are groundless
and prima facie there is sufficient material on record for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence u/s
325/354/506 IPC."
4. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner, who is a tenant,
was asked by the respondent(complainant) to remove the water tank
which was obstructing the passage of the residents. In the FIR, it is
alleged that the petitioner hit the complainant on her nose with his fist
and she fell down and her nose started bleeding. Thereafter, it is
alleged that the petitioner hit her with his foot and she started
bleeding. Further, it is noticed in the FIR that in the MLC the doctor
has opined that the injury sustained is grievous in nature. The
complainant has reiterated her allegations in the 161 statement.
5. The Trial Court, based on the material, which was produced
before the Court, was of the view that there was prima facie sufficient
material to proceed against the petitioner for the purpose of framing of
charge.
6. It is not necessary for the Trial Court at the stage of framing of
charge to pass a detailed speaking order. If the reasons mentioned by
the Trial Court are sufficient to show that prima facie sufficient
material was available to proceed, it is enough. At the stage of
framing of charge, the Trial Court has to be satisfied that there is
material to proceed. The Trial Court does not have to be satisfied that
there is material to convict.
7. The Trial Court has assessed the material which is available
before the Trial Court. In the present case it was the statement of the
complainant as well as the MLC, which alongwith other material, has
been considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has, thus,
concluded that there is sufficient material to proceed to frame
charges. It may also be noticed that the trial is already progressing,
and the prosecution witnesses are already being examined.
8. The Petitioner in his defence at this stage is questioning the
credibility of the statement of the public witnesses and the veracity of
the MLC and the opinion of the doctor that the injury was grievous.
9. At the stage of framing of charge what is to be considered is the
final report as well as the material collected at the stage of
investigation. The objection raised by the accused questioning the
credibility of the statement of the public witnesses and the veracity of
the MLC and the opinion of the doctor that the injury was grievous
cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge.
10. The impugned order, though brief, succinctly shows application
of mind by the Trial Court. The trial court has referred to material
whereby the Trial Court has prima facie found that the petitioner
assaulted the complainant on account of which the complaint
sustained injury, which has been opined to be grievous in nature.
11. I find no infirmity with the impugned order dated 08.01.2016
framing charge against the petitioner under Section 325/354/506 IPC.
12. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. It is clarified that this order shall not amount to expression of
opinion on the merits of the case of either party.
14. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
February 07, 2018/st
