Delhi High Court
Sarvjeet Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 19 September, 2022
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEWDELHI
Reserved on: July 21, 2022
Decided on: September19, 2022
+ W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 & CRL .M.A. 13903/2022
SARVJEET SINGH ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amish Aggarwala,
Advocate.
V
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Jeet Rai Sharma,
Advocate for R-1 with SI
Meenu, P.S. Tilak Nagar.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.")
read with Article 226 of Constitution of India for setting aside the
impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed in CIS No. 1063/2020 titled
as State V Sarvjeet Singh whereby the application under section 340
Cr.P.C. read with section 195 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was
dismissed by the Court of Ms. Sonam Gupta, MM(Mahila Court-02),
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 1
17:33:39
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "trial
Court") and judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Court of Shri
Pooran Chand, Additional Sessions Judge-02, West, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Court") in
Criminal Appeal No. 78/2021 titled as Sarvjeet Singh V Jasleen
Kaur filed by the petitioner.
2. FIR bearing No. 1244/2015 dated 23.08.2015 was got
registered under sections 354A/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") on the basis of complaint made
by the respondent No. 2 pertaining to the incident stated to be
happened on 28.08.2018 on the allegations as mentioned in FIR
wherein the petitioner was implicated. The petitioner vide judgment
dated 28.09.2019 was acquitted after giving benefit of doubt for the
offences punishable under sections 354A/506/509 IPC after
conclusion of trial. The trial Court observed that non-examination of
eye-witnesses who could have supported the case of the prosecution
cast a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution, in the facts and
circumstances of the case when the version of the respondent no. 2 is
itself doubtful.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 2
17:33:39
3. The petitioner filed an application under section 340 Cr.P.C.
read with section 195 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal enquiry against
the respondent no. 2 for offences punishable under sections
182/193/209/211 IPC wherein it is stated that the petitioner is a
victim of media trial in a frivolous complaint filed by the respondent
no. 2. The eye-witnesses supported the case of the petitioner in their
oral testimony and other credible and impeachable electronic
evidence were also produced to support the version of the petitioner.
The respondent no. 2 has committed offences punishable under
sections 182/193/195/209/211 IPC against the petitioner. The
respondent no. 2 was legally bound by oath to state the true facts
during her testimony dated 01.12.2018 but made false statement to
implicate the petitioner.
4. The trial Court vide order dated 31.03.2021 has dismissed the
application by observing that the application under section 340
Cr.P.C. is not attracted in case of any improvement in the testimony
of the respondent no. 2 or any improvement surfaced during the
cross-examination of the respondent no. 2 which could have been on
account of passage of time. It cannot be stated that the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 3
17:33:39
no. 2 has made false statement to implicate the petitioner even if the
petitioner was acquitted after conclusion of trial.
5. The petitioner against the order dated 31.03.2021, filed a
Criminal Appeal bearing No. 78/2021 titled as Sarvjeet Singh V
Jasleen Kaur which was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2022 by
the Appellate Court by observing that there was no material
irregularity and illegality in the impugmed order.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition and
challenged the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by trial Court and
judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Appellate Court on the
grounds that the Courts below have erred in passing the impugned
orders/judgments without considering the material facts and
circumstances of the case and have proceeded on an incorrect
application of law. The impugned orders/judgments have been
passed in complete disregard of the provisions of law. The
respondent no. 2 was legally bound by oath to state the truth during
her testimony recorded on 01.12.2018, however, the respondent no. 2
made false statement in order to implicate the petitioner. The
respondent no. 2 is liable to be punished for offences under sections
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 4
17:33:39
193/195/209/211 IPC. The respondent no. 2 has misused the law to
her advantage. The petitioner was subjected to the media trial and his
life has been completely ruined due to the acts of the respondent
no.2. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned orders on
other grounds as mentioned in the present petition. It was prayed that
the present petition be allowed and the impugned order/judgment be
set aside.
7. The counsel for the petitioner in the oral arguments as well as
in the written submissions has reiterated the facts and grounds as
stated in the present petition which are duly considered.
8. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent no.1
argued that the present petition is not maintainable.
9. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was acquitted
vide judgment dated 28.09.2019 after giving benefit of doubt. The
trial Court has also observed that as no public witness was examined
in the present case and as such, under the given facts and
circumstances of the case, the version of the respondent no. 2 has
become doubtful.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 5
17:33:39
9.1 The trial Court while disposing of the application under section
340 Cr.P.C. also observed that if the petitioner was acquitted after
giving benefit of doubt, it does not mean that the respondent no. 2 has
made false statement to implicate the petitioner and if the
Investigating Officer has not examined or included eye-witnesses in
the investigation, it does not mean that the provisions under section
340 Cr.P.C. is attracted. The trial Court also observed that if any
improvement in the testimony of the respondent no. 2 is made or any
improvement is surfaced, it does not give a right to the petitioner to
attract the provisions under section 340 Cr.P.C.
9.2 The Appellate Court also observed that order dated 31.03.2021
is reasoned and is not suffering from any material irregularity and
illegality. The Appellate Court also observed that if the provisions of
section 340 Cr.P.C. is construed liberally then every acquittal would
attract section 340 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that the Courts are
under obligation to use the provisions of section 340 Cr.P.C. with
utmost care and caution.
10. The order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the trial Court and
judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Appellate Court are well-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 6
17:33:39
reasoned and both the Courts have rightly held that the mere acquittal
of the petitioner after giving benefit of doubt does not attract section
195 IPC and other offences and the preliminary enquiry as
contemplated under section 340 Cr.P.C. The trial Court while
acquitting the petitioner, has not given any finding that the
respondent no. 2 has made false statement on oath during the trial
before the Court. The anxiety of the petitioner can be very well
understood as the respondent no. 2 has published the incident in the
media which might have caused loss of reputation to the petitioner.
However, the mere loss of reputation is not sufficient to attract the
provisions under section 340 Cr.P.C. The arguments advanced by the
counsel for the petitioner and the judgments relied upon are also
considered in the right perspective.
11. The present petition is devoid of merit, hence, dismissed.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal
proceedings for the defamation alleged to have been caused by the
respondent no. 2 towards the petitioner by lodging the present FIR in
accordance with law or by initiating any other remedy as provided
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 7
17:33:39
under law. The application under section 340 Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable under the given facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The present petition alongwith pending applications, if any,
stands dismissed.
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
N/KG
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.09.2022 W.P.(CRL.) NO. 1598/2022 SARVJEET SINGH V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Page 8
17:33:39
