Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Del) 2336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. Gauba, J.
Salman Khurshid - Petitioner
Versus
State Nct of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.M.C. 4551 of 2018, Crl.M.A.31631 of 2018, 35622-35623 of 2018, 5574 of 2019, Crl.M.C. 5069 of 2018, Crl.M.A.33507 of 2018, Crl.M.C. 175 of 2019, Crl.M.A.5611 of 2019, Crl.Rev.P. 950 of 2018 And Crl.M.A.5601 of 2019
Decided On : 27-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Ms. Sakshi Kotiyal, Mr. Shivanshu Singh & Mr. Prithvi Narula, Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Mr. Kushank Sindhu, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with SI Rakesh Kumar, PS Amar Colony Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vasudha Bajaj & Mr. A.Gupta, Advocates

The summoning order and the order directing charges against the accused must be based on a comprehensive scrutiny of evidence, including both the main charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet, to ensure a fair and just decision.

Headnote:
Criminal Trespass - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 448, Section 34, Section 419, Section 451, Section 474, Section 120B - The judgment discusses the criminal case arising from FIR no.421/2015 of Police Station Amar Colony, involving allegations of criminal trespass into the office of DPS Society and subsequent summoning of accused individuals. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and documentary proof, to determine the legality of the summoning order and the framing of charges against the accused. The court found that the initial investigation was deficient, leading to further investigation and the submission of a supplementary charge-sheet. The court concluded that the summoning order and the order directing charges against the accused were based on a limited scrutiny of evidence and were therefore perverse. The court set aside the orders and remitted the case for fresh consideration on the question of charge.
Fact of the Case:

The criminal case relates to allegations of criminal trespass into the office of DPS Society based on FIR no.421/2015 of Police Station Amar Colony. The initial investigation resulted in a charge-sheet under Section 448 IPC against Dr. Sharda Nayak. Further investigation led to a supplementary charge-sheet and summoning of additional accused individuals.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the summoning order and the order directing charges against the accused were based on a limited scrutiny of evidence and were therefore perverse. The court set aside the orders and remitted the case for fresh consideration on the question of charge.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the summoning order and the framing of charges against the accused, considering the evidence presented with the main charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the summoning order and the order directing charges against the accused were based on a limited scrutiny of evidence and were therefore perverse. The court set aside the orders and remitted the case for fresh consideration on the question of charge.
Final Decision: The petitions of Mr. Salman Khurshid and Mr. S.R. Vaish were dismissed, while the petitions of the State and Delhi Public School Society & Ors. were allowed. The order directing charges against Dr. Sharda Nayak and the judgment of the additional sessions Judge were set aside. The criminal case against Dr. Sharda Nayak stands revived, and the case arising from FIR No.421/2015 of Police Station Amar Colony will be taken up for consideration of the question of charge by the concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

1. These petitions arise out of various orders relating to a criminal case pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East District at Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi and have given rise to certain common questions of fact and law and, therefore, on the request of all parties, have been heard together and are being decided through this common judgment. It may be mentioned here that the criminal case relates to first information report (FIR) no.421/2015 of police station Amar Colony, which was registered on 31.03.2015, on the complaint of Rear Admiral M.M. Chopra, described as Vice- Chairman of Delhi Public School Society (“DPS Society”) respecting an incident that had statedly occurred from about 9.30 a.m. onwards on 30.03.2015 in the office of DPS Society located at F Block, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.

2. On the allegations made in the complaint dated 30.03.2015 which formed the basis of the above-said FIR, the police initially took it to be a case involving offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), reference at that time having been made to the involvement of Dr. (Mrs.) Sharda Nayak (respondent in Crl. MC 175/2019 and Crl. Rev. 950/2018), she concededly being a life member of the said society. The initial investigation into the said FIR resulted in a report dated 18.02.2016 (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being submitted in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.03.2016 on the basis of which cognizance was taken for offence under Section 448 IPC whereby the afore-said respondent (Sharda Nayak) was summoned as an accused.

3. By order dated 01.03.2017, the request of investigating agency for “further investigation” was allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and this eventually led to a supplementary report (supplementary charge-sheet) dated 15.12.2017 being submitted whereby request was made for prosecution of certain others to be initiated, they including petitioner Mr. Salman Khurshid (Crl. MC 4551/2018) and petitioner S.R. Vaish – also described as Satyajit Vaish – (Crl. M.C. 5069/2018), the investigating agency requesting for cognizance to be taken and trial to be held for offences under Sections 419, 451, 474, 120B IPC.

4. Cognizance on the supplementary charge-sheet was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 08.01.2018, in terms of which the two above-mentioned petitioners, and one Narender Kumar, were summoned. But, the said order was set aside by this court by order dated 09.05.2018 in Crl. MC 1589/2018 for the reason the main charge-sheet had not been considered. The Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter passed a fresh order, this time upon perusal of the main charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet and by proceedings recorded on 04.08.2018 took cognizance and issued process against the said three persons summoning them as accused.

5. Meanwhile, the case against the person described as prime accused (Dr. Sharda Nayak) had come up before the Metropolitan Magistrate for consideration of charge. By order dated 09.06.2017, charge was found made out for putting her on trial for offences punishable under Sections 416, 451, 467, 471, 474 IPC. The order led to formal charges being framed on 22.07.2017. The said orders framing charge, and the charges framed in its wake, were assailed before the court of Sessions, its revisional jurisdiction having been invoked by petition (Crl. Rev. 493/2017) preferred by respondent Dr. Sharda Nayak. The revision petition was allowed, by judgment dated 15.09.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the respondent Sharda Nayak having consequently been discharged.

6. While the State and the complainant (and Society) have challenged the revisional court’s order of discharge of respondent Sharda Nayak by Crl. MC 175/2019 and Crl. Rev. 950/2018, the other two accused viz. Mr. Salman Khurshid (petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Del) 2336

The summoning order and the order directing charges against the accused must be based on a comprehensive scrutiny of evidence, including both the main charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet, to ensure a fair and just decision.

Cases Referred (17)