SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Hassan Ahmed - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 108 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
Meenakshi Chauhan, Advocate, Rakhi Dubey, Advocate, Himanshu Gera, Advocate

Headnote:

Robbery - Offence under Section 397 IPC - [Robbery] - [Offences under Section 392/34 IPC, Section 397 IPC] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 397 IPC and its application in cases where a deadly weapon is used or shown during the commission of robbery. The court referred to the judgment in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Admn. and emphasized that 'use' of a deadly weapon includes brandishing the weapon to overpower or frighten the victim. The court held that non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was received regarding a robbery where the accused brandished a pistol and threatened the complainant and his friends to give their belongings. The accused was arrested in another case and refused to join the TIP. The court was considering whether the offence under Section 397 IPC is made out based on the act of robbery involving the use of a pistol.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the revision petition and directed the framing of charges under Section 397 IPC against the accused, emphasizing that the 'use' of a deadly weapon includes brandishing the weapon to overpower or frighten the victim. The court held that non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether the act of robbery involving the brandishing of a pistol constituted an offence under Section 397 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the term 'use' of a deadly weapon includes brandishing the weapon to overpower or frighten the victim, as established in the judgment of Phool Kumar v. Delhi Admn. The court also held that non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and charges under Section 397 IPC were directed to be framed against the accused.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 25.02.2020, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in SC No.58/2020 arising out of FIR No.189/2016, registered at Police Station South Campus for offences under Section 392/34 IPC. The learned District and Sessions Judge by the order impugned herein has held that the offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out against the accused/respondent herein and the matter has been sent to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for framing of charge under Section 392 IPC.

2. The factual matrix which has led to the filing of the instant petition is as under :

    a) A complaint was received from one Navi S/o Sanjiv Bhadu R/o S/466, Second Floor, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi, stating that on 11.04.2016 at about 9 PM, four of his friends, namely, Siddhant, Suyesh, Shubham and Pranav came to meet him at his house. It is stated that at about 1:00 AM he along with his friends went to Janakpuri to drop Pranav to his work in a car bearing No. DL 1N 8064. It is stated that that the complainant was driving the car. It is stated that at about 1:40 AM the complainant stopped the car at Ring Road, Dhaula Kuan, Delhi before South Moti Bagh bus stand, to buy a cigarette. It is stated that the complainant, Pranav and Suyesh got off the car. It is stated that a grey coloured Swift Dzire car came from the wrong side and parked their car behind the car of the complainant. It is stated that the occupants of the car introduced themselves as officials of Delhi Police and asked the complainant and his friends as to what they were doing there and told them to sit inside the car. It is stated that after the complainant and his friends sat in the car, one person who was about 5'7'' and had wheatish complexion, threatened the complainant and his friends by brandishing a pistol and asked them to give all their belongings. It is stated that the complainant and his friends gave their belongings to those persons. On the said complaint, FIR No.189/2016 dated 12.04.2016, was registered at Police Station South Campus for offences under Sections 392/34 IPC.

    b) Accused (respondent herein) was arrested in FIR No.559/2016 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar for offences under Sections 411/482 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act. It is stated that during interrogation the accused gave a disclosure statement of having committed the offence in FIR No.189/2016 along with other persons who were there with him. The respondent herein refused to join the TIP.

    c) Charge-sheet has been filed stating that there is sufficient material against the respondent herein to proceed ahead against him for offences under Sections 397/34 IPC.

    d) On 25.02.2020, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, passed the impugned judgment framing charges against the respondent herein only for offences under Section 392 IPC. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, held that since the pistol had only been brandished, and it had not been used, and therefore, the offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out against the accused. Since, the offence under Section 392 IPC is triable by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the file was directed to be sent to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts to assign the case to its own Court or other Court in accordance with law.

    e) It is this order which has been assailed in the instant petition.

    4. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether when an act of robbery is committed by showing a revolver/pistol then does an offence under Section 397 is made out or not ?

    5. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, submits that showing a revolver/pistol to commit robbery is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 397 IPC. The learned APP for the State relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phool Kumar v. De

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top