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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Jitender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi and Others - Respondents.
Crl. Rev.P. 28 of 2023
Decided on : 18-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rajeev Mohan, Ms. Nitika Pancholi and Mr. Nishant Madan, Mr. Manoj Pant, SI Manju Yadav, P.S. Tilak Nagar.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges for distinct offenses must be tried separately unless they fall within the exceptions provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. The concept of joinder of charges must be applied at the initial stage of the trial.

Headnote:

Joinder of Charges - Criminal Procedure Code - 1973 - Sections 397/401 - IPC - Sections 323/354/506/34/354B/509 - POCSO Act - Section 12

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant over parking in their apartment complex. The petitioner was charged with various offenses including physical and sexual assault based on allegations by the complainant and a minor victim. The petitioner argued that the charges under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act were impermissible as they were not part of the same transaction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act were not part of the same transaction as the incidents alleged by the minor victim occurred at a different time and involved different offenses. The court set aside the charges framed under these sections.

Issues: The main issue was whether the charges under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act could be framed in the present case based on the concept of joinder of charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of joinder of charges as per the Criminal Procedure Code and relevant judicial precedents to determine that the charges under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act were not part of the same transaction and therefore could not be framed in the present case.

Final Decision: The court set aside the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, clarifying that the observations made in the judgment were only for the purpose of deciding the petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial or any further legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

The present revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) impugns the order on charge dated 07.09.2022 and the order framing charge dated 09.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO)-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 246/2022, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506/34/354B/509 of Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’) in case FIR bearing no. 282/2022, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails only the charges framed by the learned Trial Court under Section 509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act.

3. The case of prosecution is that on 16.02.2022, at about 10 : 45 AM, when the husband of the complainant/respondent no. 2 was leaving for work, the petitioner's wife had stopped him and had started hurling abuses at him. Upon him rejecting to such behaviour, the petitioner's wife had started creating a ruckus and had called the petitioner and their daughter downstairs and all of them had abused the complainant's husband. It was further alleged by the complainant ‘RK’ that upon hearing the commotion, she had gone downstairs where she had seen the petitioner and his family members giving beatings to her husband. She had also alleged that the petitioner had intentionally grabbed her and touched her chest inappropriately while she was trying to save her husband from their clutches, and had also threatened the complainant. Upon receipt of information, the concerned police officials had visited the place of incident where it was disclosed that the families used to reside in the same apartment complex and a quarrel had broken out between them on the issue of parking. Thereafter, all the parties were sent to DUU Hospital for medical examination, subsequent to which, a complaint was submitted by the complainant/respondent no. 2 to the police on the basis of which present FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/354/506/34 IPC.

4. During the course of investigation, statement of the complainant ‘RK’ was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. along with the statements of witnesses ‘KB’ and ‘SG’ on 25.02.2022 whereby allegations of beating and making obscene gestures were levelled against the petitioner by all of them. Further, ‘KB’ in her statement also stated that the petitioner on a prior occasion had misbehaved with her elder daughter i.e. respondent no. 3/minor victim. Thereafter, the statement of minor victim ‘B’, aged around 8 years, was recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. on 21.03.2022 whereby she had stated that on some prior occasion, while she had been cycling in the parking area of apartment complex in presence of her mother who was sitting near the staircase, the petitioner had come downstairs and had made obscene gestures towards her by pulling the zip of his pants and had winked his eye. Thus, in view of the statement of child victim, offences under Section 12 POCSO Act and Section 509 IPC were added by the police.

5. After hearing the arguments on point of charge, learned Trial Court, vide order dated 07.09.2022, framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 323/354/506/34/354B/509 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act. The relevant portion of order dated 07.09.2022 reads as under:

“…Having considered the submissions and having gone through the statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. of the complainant as well as other witnesses, more particularly statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C., of minor victim, I find that prima facie offence under section 323, 341, 354, 354B, 506/34 IPC as well as u/s 12 POCSO Act and alternatively u/509 IPC is made out as against accused Jitender Kumar. A case is also made for framing of charge for offence u/s 323, 341, 354, 354B, 506/34 IPC a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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