The main legal point established in the judgment is that charge can be framed not on mere suspicion but on grave suspicion of involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence, and mere disclosure statement of co-accused without any other corroborating incriminating material is insufficient for the purposes of framing of charge.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

Crl. M.A. 860/2015 (for condonation of delay) in Crl. Rev. Pet. 40/2015

For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed.

The delay in filing the petition is condoned.

Crl. Rev. Pet. 635/2014 & Crl. Rev. Pet. 40/2015

1. Both these petitions impugn common order-on-charge dated 28.07.2014.

2. Petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. 635/2014 i.e. Jai Bhagwan impugns order-on-charge insofar as the Court holds that prima-facie material is available against him for framing of charge under Sections 120B/147/148/149/307/365/380 IPC.

3. Crl. Rev. Pet. 40/2015 has been filed by the State impugning order dated 28.07.2014, whereby Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar has been discharged of all offences.

4. Subject FIR No. 672/2005, Police Station Hari Nagar, registered under Sections 147/148/149/307/365/380/120B IPC was registered on the complaint of one Mr. Bhimsen Ahuja alleging that he was the owner and in possession of a property in which certain people barged in with sticks and rods and attempted to evict him from the said property. It was alleged that those persons physically assaulted him and his wife and daughter. It was alleged that they even kidnapped his son for the purposes of evicting them from the said property.

5. It was alleged that the household goods of the property were loaded in two tempo trucks and when the said persons were in the process of removing the goods and fleeing, public intervened and Police came and two of the accused were apprehended from the spot.

6. It is the contention on behalf of Sub-Inspector Vinay Kumar that he was also part of the police party which had apprehended the two accused.

7. As per the complainant, the attempt to evict the complainant and take forcible possession was at the behest of some property dealer with whom he had a dispute.

8. The case of the prosecution is that the two accused, who were apprehended from the spot, in their disclosure statements stated that they had been approached by the property dealer for evicting the complainant and they approached Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar, who assured them that on payment of money he would not intervene in the eviction process and rather would assist them in evicting the complainant. They in their disclosure statement further stated that they had taken the help of 4-5 people including Jai Bhagwan for the purposes of eviction.

9. Trial Court in the impugned order on charge, inter-alia, held as under:-

"If contents of charge-sheet, statements of witnesses and documents attached with the charge sheet are perused. It is clear that basic ingredients of offences U/S 120- B/147/148/149/307/365 IPC are made out prima-facie against accused Jai Bhagwan as charges already framed qua other five accused persons. The complainant and other witnesses have described the incident in detail. The issues raised by Ld. Counsel accused Jai Bhagwan are subject matter of trial and no clean chit can be given to the accused Jai Bhagwan at this stage for any of the offences without entering into the trial.

So far as case against accused Vinay Kumar is concerned, he is not a party to the actual dispute and allegations against him are that he helped one of the party i.e. the accused persons in commission of the alleged offence by misusing his authority as a police officer. It is alleged that he obtained Rs. 50,000/- in cash from the accused persons and helped them in vacating the premises. After carefully perusal of record, material contradictions and discrepancies are notices in the case of prosecution qua accused Vinay Kumar. It is case of the prosecution that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from accused Vinay Kumar on 22-11-2005 being the amount obtained by him from the accused persons and that the same was deposited in the Malkhana. Statement of ASI Krishan Chander and Inspector Omvati Malik recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. on 23-11-2005 talks about such facts. The date of arrest of accused Vinay Kumar is also 22-11-2005. But on the contrary, the Malkhana reco