Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
HITENDER SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 277/2012
Decided On : 02-05-2016
Mr.Surender Singh, Advocate
Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Bharat Lal, PS Hauz Khas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the compliance with Section 195 CrPC and its implications on the trial of the accused for distinct offences under Section 186 and 353 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Section 195 CrPC - Discharge Petition - 186/353/34 IPC, 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the requirements of Section 195 CrPC and its compliance by the investigating agency. It highlighted the distinction between the offences under Section 186 and 353 of the IPC and their implications on the trial of the accused. The court also emphasized the provisions of Section 155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases involving multiple offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought discharge in a case involving charges under Sections 186/353/307/411/34 IPC and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act. The petitioner argued that no complaint was filed as required under Section 195 CrPC for the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC and that no overt act was attributed to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that the complaint under Section 195 CrPC was filed along with the chargesheet and a witness was cited to prove the same. The court also noted that the chargesheet included a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate after considering the material on record.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance with Section 195 CrPC, the distinction between the offences under Section 186 and 353 of the IPC, and the implications of multiple offences on the trial of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the compliance with Section 195 CrPC, the distinction between the offences under Section 186 and 353 of the IPC, and the provisions of Section 155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases involving multiple offences.
Final Decision: The revision petition seeking discharge was dismissed, finding no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Hitender Singh, who is one of the accused in case FIR No.363/2010 under Sections 186/353/307/411/34 IPC and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act registered at PS Hauz Khas, Delhi.
2. The petitioner is seeking discharge in the said FIR mainly on the following grounds:-
(i) For the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC, no complaint was filed as required under Section 195 CrPC hence cognizance could not have been taken by the Court.
(ii) No overt act has been attributed to the petitioner who was merely sitting on the rear seat in the vehicle.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Mr.Surender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Trial Court has failed to consider that requirements of Section 195 CrPC have not been complied with by the investigating agency. The cognizance of the offence has been taken on the chargesheet filed by the police without there being a criminal complaint as required under Section 195 CrPC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Vasudev vs. State 1984 (7) DRJ 248, Gurinder Singh vs. State 61 (1996) DLT 104, P. Btiraj vs. K.Muniyandi 1995 Criminal Rulings 219, Bhagat Ra, vs. State of Punjab 1991(1) Crl.L.J. 246, Ashok & Anr. Vs. The State 1987 Crl.L.J. 1750, Sushil Sharma & Ors. vs. State & Anr. in Crl.Rev.P. No.418/2008 decided on 27.02.2015 and submitted that in the absence of any complaint under Section 195 CrPC filed by the local police/complainant with the concerned Magistrate, the primary condition for prosecution of the petitioner for committing the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC being not satisfied, the prosecution is technically wrong and not in accordance with the procedure laid down under Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner being contrary to record and settled legal position are liable to be rejected. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that chargesheet against the petitioner and his co-accused was filed before the learned Magistrate. Alongwith the chargesheet, complaint under Section 195 CrPC by Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi was also annexed. The list of witnesses filed alongwith the chargesheet shows that at Serial No.7, S.O, to Addl. DCP/SD, Hauz Khas, New Delhi has been cited as a witness to prove the complaint under Section 195 CrPC. The cognizance in the matter has been taken by the learned Magistrate and after compliance of requirements of Section 207 CrPC , the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as one of the offence allegedly committed by the accused persons is punishable under Section 307 IPC which is triable by the Court of Sessions. The order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence has not been challenged before this Court. The order on charge passed by the learned Magistrate and impugned before this Court shows that the petitioner has not raised the issue of complaint under Section 195 CrPC before the learned ASJ at that stage. The contentions raised on behalf of the accused persons have been noted down in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned order and are extracted as under:-
‘2. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued that the entire prosecution story is concocted inasmuch as it is not clear as to who was driving the car and who was sitting with the driver on the front seat of the car. According to the FIR, Mukeem and Aamir Khan both were drivers of the car whereas katta was used by the person sitting on the seat near the driver. It has been further stated that there is no mention in the FIR as to how and from whom the katta was recovered.
3. Sh.S.S.Bhatia, ld. Counsel for accused Rahul argued that from him a golden broken chain has been recovered and hence at the most charge under Section 411 IPC can be leveled against him, a
