IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot go into veracity of factual position at the stage of section 482 CrPC if a prima facie case is made put.

JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. Through the impugned order passed by the High Court, the charges framed against Rakesh Kumar Gupta, respondent herein, were ordered to be set aside. The order passed by the High Court dated 18.09.2009, is the subject matter of challenge, at the hands of the complainant.

2. The incident, as it emerges from the First Information Report, was of 13.02.2003. The actual occurrence is stated to have taken place at around 10.15 p.m. The factual information reflected in the First Information Report was, that the accused in the case -Mukesh Gupta, desired the deceased and his brother – the complainant Virender Singh, to vacate the shop let out to them, by him. The shop in question was located at A-690, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.

3. Despite the aforesaid occurrence having taken place at around 10.15 p.m., it is apparent that the First Information Report came to be registered with the Police Station, New Ashok Nagar at 12.20 a.m. In the First Information Report the complainant – Virender Singh named three persons, namely, Parmohan, Mukesh and Rakesh @ Ballu. It is therefore obvious, that the above three names were disclosed, at the very first opportunity. The complaint further indicated, that some other persons were also involved in the incident. The names of the other persons, were not disclosed.

4. In examining the prayer made at the hands of the respondent – Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the High Court recorded the following factual position, in paragraph 24 of the impugned order. The same is extracted herein below:

“24. A careful reading of the supplementary statement shows that Virender Singh had come to the police station on 23.3.2003. In the compound of the police station, he saw a person in police custody and Virender Singh informed that the person in police custody was one of the persons involved in assaulting his brother and it was only on enquiry that he came to know his name. This statement would, thus imply that Virender Singh did not know the name of the petitioner till he was told. While as per the complaint filed on 10.01.2003, Virender Singh had not only named the petitioner in the complaint but had also ascribed him a definite role. Thus, the supplementary statement of Virender Singh would have little or no value.”

5. On the basis of the narration recorded in paragraph 24, it was sought to be inferred by the High Court, that the respondent – Rakesh Kumar Gupta came to be identified for the first time on 23.03.2003, when the complainant – Virender Singh had gone to the police station, where the respondent – Rakesh Kumar Gupta was already in police custody. It is therefore, that the High Court set aside the order framing charges against the respondent – Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The High Court recorded the following observations in paragraph 28:

“28. In this case, three other family members have been named in the FIR and who are facing trial. The petitioner herein was neither named in the FIR nor was any description given therein which could connect the petitioner with the crime. In the FIR lodged by none other than Virender Singh himself, he has stated that there were two other unknown persons, who assaulted his brother (Balbir Singh). There is material on record which clearly spells out that Virender Singh (complainant) knew the petitioner beforehand, and had he seen the petitioner assaulting his brother, he would have named him in the FIR itself. I am further fortified in my view by the fact that as per the FIR itself, both the complainant and Karan Singh were present at the spot. If the complainant had been unable to see the petitioner, then Karan Singh, who as per the State witnessed the entire incident, would have surely disclosed the name of the petitioner to Virender Singh, at the spot itself. In my considered opinion, no strong/grave suspicion is made out against the petitioner on the basis of the material on record. In view of the aforestated reasons, I find that the order dated 02.06.2004 pa