Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Raj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 205 of 2019
Decided on : 20-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Ajit Kumar, Adv., Nikita Sharma, Adv., Hirein Sharma, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the prima facie ingredients of Section 395 IPC were clearly made out, leading to the court upholding the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC.
Headnote:
395 IPC - Framing of Charge - The court found that the prima facie ingredients of Section 395 IPC were clearly made out based on the allegations and the record of investigation, raising grave suspicion against the petitioner of his involvement in the subject offence. The court upheld the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC, alleging false implication, in a case where he was accused of entering a school with bouncers, assaulting the manager, and forcibly taking his thumb impression on a resignation letter, along with other threatening and coercive actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations and the record of investigation raised grave suspicion against the petitioner of his involvement in the subject offence, and upheld the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC and the alleged false implication of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prima facie ingredients of Section 395 IPC being clearly made out, and the grave suspicion raised against the petitioner of his involvement in the subject offence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that its observations contained herein shall have no bearing at the time of final adjudication of merits of the case.
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Crl.M.A.3827/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.REV.P. 205/2019 & Crl.M.A.3825-3826/2019
Petitioner impugns order dated 17.07.2018 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections u/s 395/452/323/342/149/120B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he restricts the challenges to the framing of charge under Section 395 IPC and in so far as other sections are concerned he shall be facing trial.
3. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the officiating principal of SRSD Senior Secondary School, Lajpat Nagar IV. As per the FIR when the complainant was in the school performing her duties, the petitioner along with one Mr.Devesh Nath who claimed to be Secretary of the of Pandit Shradharam trust committee, A-179, Dayanand Colony and 15-20 bouncers entered into the school from the backside and barged into the office of the principal and started assaulting the manager and abusing him and they threatened to also eliminate him.
4. It is alleged that they assaulted him with kicks and blows and forced him to sign certain papers. It is thereafter alleged that they snatched the keys of the almirah from the complainant and threatened to cause physical harm to her. The almirah contained the cheque books of the accounts and records of the school. It is alleged that they misbehaved with the manager of the school and asked him to sign certain documents failing which they would shoot him.
5. It is alleged that the petitioner claimed himself to be an advocate and advised the said bouncers to take the left hand thumb impression of the manager. Thereafter they took out a letter pad of the school on which resignation of the manager was typed and forcibly took his thumb impressions on the same.
6. It is alleged that they forcibly pushed all the school staff out of the school and locked the premises.
7. Learned APP submits that investigation has revealed that the accused thereafter removed some of the records of the school and subsequently amount was withdrawn from the bank account of the school using the cheque books which were lying in the almirah of the school. Learned APP further submits that petitioner has been identified by the complainant as the one who had also come to the school on the day of the incident and participated in the entire incident.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has bene falsely implicated. He submits that petitioner has been described as an advocate whereas he is not an advocate. It is further alleged that no offence under Section 395 IPC is made out.
9. Section 395 IPC is punishment for dacoity. Dacoity has been defined in Section 391 IPC as when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery. Robbery is defined in Section 390 IPC as theft if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt. Theft in turn has been defined in Section 378 IPC as whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
10. The allegations against the petitioner is that petitioner along with 15 to 20 bouncers had entered the school. Thereafter all of them threatened the manager and even threatened to kill him if he did not sign the documents they wanted him to sign. They are alleged to have forcibly taken his thumb impression on a resignation letter. The complainant has alleged that she was also threatened and forcibly keys of the almirah where the school records and cheque books were kept were taken from her possession. The cheque book which was alleged to have been kept in the almirah was used for w
