The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case against the accused had been established, as well as the specific elements of the alleged offenses.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr'P.C..) assailing order dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 30/2020 vide which order dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, framing charges under Sections 323/341/452/506/143/147/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (`IPC') and Sections 27/30 of Arms Act, 1959 (`Arms Act') in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 125/2013, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi, was upheld.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 14.03.2013, an information was received at P.S. Seelampur, Delhi that some persons had beaten one person namely Sh. Ishwar Chand at Shiv Mandir, double storey, New Seelampur, Delhi and upon reaching the spot, the concerned police official had found that the injured had already been taken to JPC Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi. Upon reaching the hospital, the MLC of injured was collected and his statement was recorded, who informed that when he was sitting with the priest in the temple, the accused persons namely Yogesh Verma, Sonu, Sumit, Rinku and one other person had reached there and had started hurling abuses at him. Thereafter, the accused persons had started beating him with hockey sticks, etc, and had put a pistol like object in his mouth and had threatened to kill him. It was stated that when some people had gathered at the spot after hearing noise, the accused persons had run away. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 of IPC. The supplementary statement of complainant was recorded on 13.05.2013 wherein two other persons i.e. petitioner nos. 6 and 7 were also named by the complainant/injured to have been involved in the commission of offence.

3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons under Sections 323/341/452/506/143/147/148/149 of IPC and Sections 27/30 of Arms Act. Charges were framed against the accused persons under these Sections vide order dated 03.03.2020 by the learned MM. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned MM, the petitioners had approached the court of learned ASJ by way of a revision petition, however, the same was dismissed.

4. By way of present petition, the petitioners assail the aforesaid orders by way of which charges have been framed against them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that petitioner nos. 6 and 7 were not named in the present FIR, and their names had come up in supplementary statement of the complainant recorded after two months from the date of registration of FIR. It is stated that an offence under Section 341 of IPC is not made out against any of the petitioners as there is no allegation about wrongful restraint. It is also stated that no offence under Sections 27/30 of Arms Act is made out since it was only alleged that the accused had put `object like pistol' and not `pistol' in the mouth of injured, and also because the alleged cartridge was not recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 1. It is further stated that offence under Section 148 of IPC, which deals with committing riots armed with deadly weapon, is not made out against the accused persons since there is only vague allegation about using a pistol like object and the alleged weapon was never recovered from the possession of petitioners and that the police had wrongly seized a licensed weapon of petitioner no. 1. Furthermore, no offences under Sections 452/143/147/148/149 of IPC are made out since there is lack of evidence that petitioners were a part of an unlawful assembly and since the temple is not a residential property, it does not attract the provision of Section 452 of IPC.

6. Per contra, learned APP for State submits that chargesheet had been filed in the present case after