Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
ANOOP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 262-265 of 2016
Decided On : 12-05-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Arushi Tangri, Advocate, for Mr. Anoop Singh, Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate with Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan and Mr. Karan Jain, Advocates, for Mr. D.V. Malhotra, Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Ansal, Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Harsh Bora, Mr. Kushdeep Gaur and Ms. Nicy Paulson, Advocates, for Mr. Sushil Ansal
For the Respondents:Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Trideep Pais, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Ms. Deeksha Gujral, Advocates, Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kinnore Ghosh and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocates
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present batch of criminal revision petitions, instituted under the provisions of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), seeks to assail the order framing charges, dated 31.05.2014, rendered by the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in the case titled as ‘State v. Dinesh Chand Sharma & Ors.’, arising out of the FIR bearing No. 207/2006, registered at Police Station, Tilak Marg (Crime Branch), New Delhi.
2. At the outset, it would be relevant to state that by way of the impugned order dated 31.05.2014, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has framed charges against the following persons, for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 120-B, 109, 201 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to ‘IPC’):
i. Mr. Sushil Ansal
ii. Mr. Gopal Ansal
iii. Mr. Har Swarup Panwar (Mr. H.S. Panwar)
iv. Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma
v. Mr. Dharam Vir Malhotra (Mr. D.V. Malhotra)
vi. Mr. Prem Prakash Batra (Mr. P.P. Batra)
vii. Mr. Anoop Singh
3. The impugned order dated 31.05.2014 has been sought to be assailed before this Court by, Mr. Sushil Ansal by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 265 of 2016; Mr. Gopal Ansal by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 264 of 2016; Mr. D.V. Malhotra by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 263 of 2016; and Mr. Anoop Singh by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 262 of 2016.
4. In view of the circumstance that, the charges against all the revisionists before this Court have been framed by way of a common order dated 31.05.2014; and since common questions of fact & law arise in the present batch of revision petitions, the same is being disposed of by way of a common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
5. Exposition of the background facts with essential details is imperative, in order to appreciate the controversy in the present case in the proper perspective.
6. The backdrop of the present case, as per the impugned order, is that it is an offshoot of the trial proceedings conducted in relation to a devastating fire that occurred in Uphaar Theatres, New Delhi; what is commonly referred to as, in the realm of the media, the ‘Uphaar Cinema Fire Tragedy’.
7. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present batch of petitions are adumbrated as follows:
(a) The Uphaar Cinema Fire Tragedy that occurred on 13.06.1997, led to the filing of case RC3(S)/97/SIC.IV/CBI/ND under sections 304, 304A and 337 of the IPC and section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, culminating into trial (hereinafter referred to as ‘Main Uphaar Trial’).
(b) Investigation was conducted in the said case RC3(S)/97/SIC.IV/CBI/ND and charge sheet was filed before the concerned Trial Court, arraying 16 persons, including, but not limited to, Mr. Sushil Ansal, Mr. Gopal Ansal and Mr. H.S. Panwar, as accused.
(c) A letter dated 28.11.1996 written by Mr. V.K. Nagpal, Vice President, Ansal Properties & Industries Limited to the Delhi Fire Services, was found half-torn, from the judicial file/record, at the time when the examination of PW-33, Mr. T.S. Sharma, ADO, Delhi Fire Service, was being recorded on 20.07.2002, before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in the Main Uphaar Trial.
(d) Consequent thereto, the Ld. Public Prosecutor, on examining the judicial record in the Main Uphaar Trial, found that several documents were either torn, tampered with, or not readily available.
(e) An application dated 13.01.2003, was instituted by the Ld. Public Prosecutor, bringing to the knowledge of the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge the circumstance that several important documents that were seized by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation; and were filed along with the charge sheet; and formed a part of the judicial record in the Main Uphaar Trial, were missing, tampered, or mutilated by way of tearing a portion thereof. The application w
