Delhi High Court
State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Amit @ Mintu & Anr. on 26 October, 2018
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.10.2018
+ CRL.REV. P. 8/2018
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
versus
AMIT @ MINTU & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Manoj.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Chawla, Mr. Vivek Luthra and Mr. Komal
Sharma, Advs. with respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 26.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The State has filed the present petition impugning order dated
03.10.2017 whereby the trial court has declined to frame a charge
against the respondents Amit @ Mintu and Sandeep @ Kala in case
FIR No. 441/2012 under Sections 147/148/149/308/506/34 of the IPC
at Police Station Ali Pur, Delhi.
2. Allegations in the FIR are that there was a quarrel between the
complainant's brother on one side and the co-accused on the other
side which led to a fight, consequent to which they sustained injuries.
It was alleged that the other accused along with the respondents were
also present in the fight.
3. After registration of the FIR, same was investigated and the
chargesheet was filed on 16.11.2015. In the chargesheet it is
specifically mentioned that after investigation by the IO from other
eye-witnesses, the presence of the respondents was not established on
the scene of the incident. Consequently, respondents - Amit @ Mintu
and Sandeep @ Kala were placed in Col. No. 12 solely on the basis of
statement of the complainant.
4. By the impugned order, the trial court, on perusal of the record
of investigation as well as the chargesheet has noticed that the
respondents - Amit @ Mintu and Sandeep @ Kala were not found
present at the spot during alleged incident. Accordingly, the trial court
has discharged the respondents from all offences under said FIR.
5. It is settled position of law that the charge has to be framed not
only on suspicion but grave suspicion of involvement of the accused
in the commission of the offence. Respondent No. 2 is not named in
the FIR and his name has surfaced in the statement made by the father
of the complainant.
6. Further investigation of the IO revealed that Respondents were
not present at the spot. Even the prosecution had not placed the
respondents in Col. No. 11 as accused, but had arrayed them in Col.
No. 12.
7. On perusal of the record as also the fact that respondent No. 2
were not named in the FIR by the complainant and even investigation
revealed that they were not present at the spot, I find no infirmity in
the view taken by the trail court in discharging the respondents of all
offences under the subject FIR. On perusal of the record, I am
satisfied that there is no material on record to raise grave suspension
against the respondents of having committed the subject offence.
8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition
is hereby dismissed.
OCTOBER 26, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
