Vinay Gupta vs State of NCT of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Vinay Gupta & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 84 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Visheshwar Srivastav and Mr. Manoj Gautam.
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP with ASI Roshnraj Singh.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 294, 227, 228, 397, 482 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Punishment for wrongful restraint – Criminal intimidation – No formal proof on certain documents – Saving of inherent power of High Court – Petitioner has filed present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking setting aside of the impugned order – Learned Principal and Sessions Judge order – Held, Court petitioners submitted certified copies of documents pertaining to FIR bearing regard to an application could not be looked into by learned Appellate Court – Learned Trial Court as both have to be tried as strength of its own facts and evidence led on record in each case independently of each other – Regarding recovery of weapon of offence it is a matter of trial and cannot become sole ground for discharge of an accused – Petition stands dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Principal and Sessions Judge (South), New Delhi in C.R. No. 270/2022 wherein, the order dated 01.06.2022, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate 04 (South) Saket Court, New Delhi in C.R. Case No. 3036/2018, relating to FIR No. 140/2017 registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, has been upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.03.2017, petitioner no.1, i.e., Vinay Gupta, along with petitioner no.2, i.e., Satish Gupta and petitioner no.3, i.e., Aman Gupta, had gone to meet some acquaintances at around 7:30 pm, in C Block at Sehrawat Gas Agency, New Delhi where a person namely, Pawan Bhure along with six–seven persons including respondent no.2, i.e., Narender and respondent no. 3, i.e., Sumit Kumar surrounded the present petitioners and threatened them stating that they shall not allow any political campaign in the area. The petitioners herein asked respondent nos. 2 & 3 to leave them alone, however, respondent nos. 2 & 3 caught hold of one, namely Ashutosh Gupta and attacked him and the petitioners. Petitioners called the PCR to the crime spot, but respondents absconded from the spot before the PCR could arrive. After that, PCR took injured petitioner nos. 1, 3 and Ashutosh to Batra Hospital. After treating the injured persons, doctors prepared their MLC. On 27.03.2017, the petitioners herein lodged an FIR bearing no. 139/2017 at Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

3. On 27.03.2017, respondent no. 2 also lodged a cross FIR bearing no. 140/2017 at Police Station Sangam Vihar, for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), wherein it was stated by respondent no. 2 that on 26.03.2017, the petitioners herein, along with a few others came near C Block, Sherawat Gas Agency for election campaign and during a heated conversation with the respondents, petitioners herein started beating respondent nos. 2 and 3 with a stick and a sharp thing/weapon thereby causing serious injuries. After that, respondent nos. 2 and 3 went to AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi, where the concerned doctors had to administer seven stitches to respondent nos. 2 and 10 stitches to respondent no. 3. MLCs of both respondent nos. 2 & 3 were filed alongwith the complaint.

4. The police, after investigating the FIR bearing no. 140/2017, lodged by respondent nos.2 and 3, submitted the charge sheet under Sections 324 and 34 IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken against the petitioners, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. In due course of the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners moved an application before the learned Trial Court in Case No. 3036/2017 under section 294 Cr.P.C. calling upon the prosecution to admit the record of the cross-case FIR no. 139/2017. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2022, being satisfied with the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners, took on record the documents as being admitted by the prosecution. The relevant portion of said order is as under :

“Today matter is fixed for arguments on charge, however an application w/s 294 CrPC has been moved on behalf of the accused persons calling upon the prosecution to admit the record of the cross-case FIR no. 139/17.

Certified copy of the said record has been filed along with the application. Same has been perused by Id. APP for the State and he has stated that he has no objection to admit the same.

Being satisfied, the documents filed on behalf of the accused persons is taken on record as being admitted by prosecution.

Adjournment sought for arguments on charge.

File be put up alongwith cross case FIR no. 139/17 for arguments o